https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43864 The court interpreted the word "given" in Sections 110(2) and 124(a) of the Customs Act to mean that the show cause notice must have been received by the importer. It held that Section 110(2) is mandatory, allowing for a maximum extension of one year for issuing the notice. The court emphasized that sending the notice by registered post does not fulfill the requirement of "given." Confiscation proceedings under Section 110(1) cannot be quashed solely due to a delayed notice. The court directed the release of seized goods to the petitioners upon payment of customs duty. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:39:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43864 The court interpreted the word "given" in Sections 110(2) and 124(a) of the Customs Act to mean that the show cause notice must have been received by the importer. It held that Section 110(2) is mandatory, allowing for a maximum extension of one year for issuing the notice. The court emphasized that sending the notice by registered post does not fulfill the requirement of "given." Confiscation proceedings under Section 110(1) cannot be quashed solely due to a delayed notice. The court directed the release of seized goods to the petitioners upon payment of customs duty. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43864