https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40660 Section 110(1) of the Customs Act permits seizure only where the proper officer has reason to believe goods are liable to confiscation, while Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods if no notice under Section 124(a) is issued within six months, subject to extension for sufficient cause. The Calcutta HC treated these provisions as a strict limitation on State interference with property and held that no implied power to re-seize the same goods exists after restoration. Repeated seizure was considered inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the right to property. The impugned seizure was therefore quashed and return of the goods directed. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2010 11:09:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40660 Section 110(1) of the Customs Act permits seizure only where the proper officer has reason to believe goods are liable to confiscation, while Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods if no notice under Section 124(a) is issued within six months, subject to extension for sufficient cause. The Calcutta HC treated these provisions as a strict limitation on State interference with property and held that no implied power to re-seize the same goods exists after restoration. Repeated seizure was considered inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the right to property. The impugned seizure was therefore quashed and return of the goods directed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40660