Customs seizure and confiscation notice rules upheld: relevant material supported belief of confiscability, and service on one partner was valid.

Customs seizure under Section 110 is supported where the proper officer has relevant and germane material to form a reason to believe that goods are liable to confiscation, and the adequacy of that material is not open to judicial review once such material exists. On the stated facts, concealment and attempted illegal export of prohibited goods provided that basis, so the seizure was upheld. A confiscation notice served within six months on the partnership firm and one partner satisfied Section 124(a), because service on a partner constitutes good service on the firm. The Section 110(2) claim for return of the seized goods therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs authorities had material to form a reason to believe that the seized goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether service of the confiscation notice on one partner of the partnership firm within six months satisfied the requirement of Section 124(a), so as to defeat the claim under Section 110(2).

Issue (i): Whether the Customs authorities had material to form a reason to believe that the seized goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The seizure power under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be exercised when the proper officer has relevant and germane material to form the requisite belief. The sufficiency of that material is not open to judicial review once the existence of material is shown. On the facts, the record disclosed circumstances indicating concealment and attempted illegal export of goods prohibited under the export policy, which furnished the necessary basis for action under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid and is upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether service of the confiscation notice on one partner of the partnership firm within six months satisfied the requirement of Section 124(a), so as to defeat the claim under Section 110(2).

Analysis: The notice for confiscation was issued within six months from the dates of seizure and was served on the firm and on at least one partner. In the case of a partnership firm, service on a partner amounts to good service on the firm. Since the notice was duly served within the statutory period, the remedy under Section 110(2) for return of the seized goods was not attracted.

Conclusion: The requirement of Section 124(a) was satisfied and the claim under Section 110(2) fails.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the seizures and confiscation notice failed, and the writ appeal was dismissed with costs, leaving the Customs proceedings to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where relevant and germane material exists for the customs officer to form the statutory belief of liability to confiscation, the adequacy of that material is not open to judicial review, and service of a confiscation notice on one partner of a partnership firm constitutes valid service on the firm within the statutory period.

---