1976 (8) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....why the seized goods should not be confiscated was issued by the Customs authorities on the 27th November; 1670. According to the petitioner, the said notice was received by him on the 20th March, 1971. Before the receipt of that notice however personal hearing was given to the learned advocate of the petitioner on several dates and ultimately on the 13th January, 1972 the additional Collector of Customs passed an order confiscating the seized goods and the currency notes and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/ -. It is this order of confiscation which is challenged before the in this application. He learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before me that the order of confiscation is bad as the notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th November, 1970 by registered post. But it was not received by the petitioner and the postal authorities returned it with the remark, out of Calcutta-hence left'. Mr. P. N. Chunder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the customs authorities contended that the notice in the instant case was served within the time prescribed by law. In support of this contention Mr. Chunder relied on Section 153 of the act which provides as follows: "any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall he served- (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent; or (b) if the order, decision, summons or....