Customs seizure retention and confiscation notice invalidated for lack of hearing and prejudgment of importation issues

An extension of retention of seized goods beyond six months under the Customs Act is quasi-judicial and cannot be granted ex parte, because expiry of that period gives the affected person a valuable right to seek return of the goods; the extension order was therefore quashed for want of hearing. A show cause notice under the confiscation provisions must also reflect an open mind and a real opportunity to answer proposed grounds; where the authority had already concluded that the gold was illicitly imported and liable to confiscation, the notice was treated as a foregone conclusion and quashed. The seizure retention order and notice were not sustained, and restoration of the seized gold was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order extending the period for retention of seized goods beyond six months under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be passed without giving the affected person an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Whether the show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invalid because the authority had already prejudged the issue of illicit importation and confiscability.

Issue (i): Whether an order extending the period for retention of seized goods beyond six months under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be passed without giving the affected person an opportunity of being heard.

Analysis: The power to extend detention under the proviso to section 110(2) was treated as one requiring a judicial approach. Since expiry of six months created a valuable right in the person from whom the goods were seized to seek return of the goods, that right could not be taken away by an ex parte extension order made behind the person's back. The authority was therefore bound to hear the affected person before granting extension.

Conclusion: The extension order was invalid for want of hearing and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invalid because the authority had already prejudged the issue of illicit importation and confiscability.

Analysis: A notice under section 124 must afford a real opportunity to meet proposed grounds of confiscation. Where the notice and accompanying material showed that the authority had already reached a settled conclusion that the gold was illicitly imported and liable to confiscation, the notice ceased to be a fair invitation to show cause and became an empty formality. The authority issuing the notice was required to keep an open mind until the adjudication stage.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was invalid and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The seizure retention order and the show cause proceedings could not be sustained, and the seized gold was ordered to be restored to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An order extending retention of seized goods under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is quasi-judicial and requires prior hearing of the affected person, and a show cause notice under section 124 is invalid if the authority has already prejudged the confiscation issue instead of keeping an open mind.

---