Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 704 (RAJ)

Shafi Khan v. Union of India

2006-03-01

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-This petition for writ is preferred assailing validity and propriety of the order dated 210.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur exercising powers under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. By the order impugned, the Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Customs ordered for confiscation of conveyance i.e., a Jeep having registration No. RJ-14/C-0305 being frequently used in smuggling. The Jeep concerned was seized by the custom authorities on 02.06.1993. While giving challenge to the order impugned, it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the conveyance concern being a "goods" as defined under Clause 22 of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962, could not be confiscated without adhering the procedure prescribed under Section 124 of the Act of 1962. According to the petitioner, no notice to show cause for confiscating the Jeep was given to him though he is registered owner of the same. 3. A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of respondent stating therein that the Deputy Collector (Customs) ordered for confiscating of the Jeep after adhering the procedure prescribed under Section 124 of the Act and a notice to show cause was issued in this regard on 211.1992 to Smt. Kulsum Begum, who was registered owner of the vehicle. 4. Heard Counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. It is the position admitted that the Jeep bearing No. RJ-14/C-0305 was seized by custom authorities on 02.06.1992. After making the seizure, a representation was submitted by the present petitioner, which is available on record as Annexure 4 stating therein that he is registered owner of the Jeep and, therefore, an opportunity for hearing should be allowed to him, if any proceedings are initiated for confiscating the conveyance. An another representation reiterating the same facts was also given by the petitioner on 20.11.1992 to the Collector (Customs), Jaipur. The petitioner has also placed on record a photo stat copy of the certificate of Registration pertaining to Jeep in question, from perusal of which it is apparent that the petitioner was entered as registered owner of the Jeep in question on 010.1991. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the fact about submissions of the representations by the petitioner. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the fact about submissions of the representations by the petitioner. The facts stated above establishes it well that the knowledge of the petitioner being registered owner of the vehicle was with respondents, therefore, there was no reason for not calling upon the petitioner to show cause as prescribed under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 before taking an action under Section 115 of the Act of 1962. The respondents called Smt. Kulsum Begum to submit an explanation as required under Section 124, who sold the vehicle to one Shri Naresh Singh Chauhan long back and then it was transferred to the petitioner on 010.1991. For no just and valid reason, respondents did not permit the petitioner by calling upon him as prescribed under Section 124 of the Act of 1962 to submit his explanation before confiscation of the vehicle. The order impugned dated 210.1992, therefore, is patent violation of the provisions of Section 124 of the Act of 1962. 6. The writ petition accordingly succeeds. The order dated 210.1993 is hereby quashed to the extent it relates to the confiscation of the conveyance in question. The respondents are directed to release the conveyance in question forthwith. 7. No order as to costs.