Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1972 DIGILAW 74 (KER)

C. v. KUNJAN

1972-03-22

P.NARAYANA PILLAI

body1972
Judgment :- 1. It is Ext. P6-order dated February 23, 1970 of the respondent, the Assistant Collector or Customs, confiscating certain watches, watch straps and fountain pens seized from the petitioner who is a stationery merchant at Ernakulam, that is sought to be quashed here. It was on July 31, 1969 that the seizure was effected. The seizure was made under peculiar circumstances from the Advocate of the petitioner. There was a previous seizure of the same goods. That was on March 31,1967. The petitioner filed Crl. M. P. 240 of 1967 before this Court to quash the proceedings relating to that seizure. That petition was dismissed Thereafter he filed O. P. 1555 of 1967 for quashing the proceedings. That was allowed on June 23,1969 and the goods were directed to be returned to the petitioner. The respondent then sent Ext. P2. communication on July 10, 1969 to the petitioner directing him to take delivery of the goods in view of the decision in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967. By Ext. P3 letter dated July 24,1969 the petitioner informed the respondent that the petitioner's Advocate would appear before the respondent for taking delivery of the goods. As mentioned in that letter the Advocate appeared before the respondent on July 31, 1969. It was then that the second seizure evidenced by Ext. P4 dated July 31, 1969 was made, 2. It is mentioned in the last column of Ext. P4 that the poods were released to the Advocate pursuant to the decision of this Court in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967 and that thereafter it was seized from him. But no acknowledgment was taken from him for receipt of the goods. No doubt the Advocate has signed at the bottom of Ext. P4. But that was only in acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of Ext. P4. 3. It was under S.110 of the Customs Act, 52 of 1962, that the two seizures were made. The relevant portion of that Section reads: "110. No doubt the Advocate has signed at the bottom of Ext. P4. But that was only in acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of Ext. P4. 3. It was under S.110 of the Customs Act, 52 of 1962, that the two seizures were made. The relevant portion of that Section reads: "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (2) Where any goods are seized under sub section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of S.124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. Under S.110(1) goods are liable to be seized if the Officer has reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation; Under S.110(2) after the seizure of the goods if show cause notice for confiscation of goods under S.124 of the Act is not given within six months of the seizure, the goods have to be returned to the person from whose, possession they were taken. The proviso to it empowers the Collector of Customs to extend the period of six months but that only on sufficient cause being shown. In the present case the period of six months after the first seizure of the goods expired on September 31, 1967 and the Collector of Customs did not extend that period. 4. It was specifically contended by the petitioner in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967 that the first seizure effected on March 31, 1967 was invalid. That contention was repelled. It has therefore to be taken that the first seizure was valid. 5. 4. It was specifically contended by the petitioner in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967 that the first seizure effected on March 31, 1967 was invalid. That contention was repelled. It has therefore to be taken that the first seizure was valid. 5. This court in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967 directed return of the goods to the petitioner because admittedly no show cause notice as contemplated under S.124 for confiscation of the goods was given by the respondent to the petitioner within the time contemplated by S.110(2). 6. From the date of seizure the initial period granted under S.110(2) for the concerned officer to make up his mind as to whether show cause notice under S.124 should issued for confiscation of the goods is six .months. Thereafter power is given to the Collector to extend the period of six months but that he can do only on showing sufficient cause. The total period for issue of a show cause notice can in no event exceed one year. The intention is that the person from whom the goods were seized should not be kept in suspense for more than one year as to whether the concerned officer is going to take steps or not for confiscation of the goods. The Supreme Court said in Assistant Collector of Customs v, Charan Das Malhotra (1971 (1) S C C. 697) that the right to restoration of the goods after the expiry of the period mentioned in S.110 (2) is a civil right which accrues to the person entitled to it: It is a valuable right. Therefore due importance has to be given to the period mentioned in S.410 (2) and if a valid seizure is once made and the concerned officer fails to give the show cause notice for confiscation within the prescribed time he should not be allowed to defeat that provision by resorting to a second seizure and thereafter giving that notice within six months of it. 7. The first seizure in this case was valid. The explanation of the respondent for not issuing show cause notice after that seizure was that there was stay from Criminal M.P.240 of 1967. But that was only for a period of about two months from 11-4-1967 to 14-6-1967. No stay was ordered in O.P. No. 1955 of 1967. 7. The first seizure in this case was valid. The explanation of the respondent for not issuing show cause notice after that seizure was that there was stay from Criminal M.P.240 of 1967. But that was only for a period of about two months from 11-4-1967 to 14-6-1967. No stay was ordered in O.P. No. 1955 of 1967. There is no provision in the Act for extending the period for issuing show cause notice in any event beyond one year. Therefore there is no power to extend that time even if there is justification for not issuing show cause notice within that time. The show cause notice issued under S.124 was more than one year after the first seizure which was valid. 8. It was argued that the judgment in OP. No. 1955 of 1967 permitted a second seizure and issue of a show cause notice thereafter. Nothing of the kind was said there. The validity of such a procedure was left open after specifically saying that that question did not arise for consideration there. Therefore the Judgment in OP. No. 1955 of 1967 does not justify the procedure adopted by the respondent. 9. In the result this Original Petition is allowed with costs.