IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10/11/2003
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
W.P.NO.31718 OF 2003
Sha Moolchand Praopchandji Gandhi ..Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Commissioner of Customs
(Airport), Customs House
33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1
2.The Addl.Commissioner of Customs
(Airport), Anna International Airport
Chennai - 600 027 ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Satish Sundar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Madhanagopala Rao, SCGSC
:ORDER
Return of the seized goods is asked for on the ground that a period of
six months have elapsed from the date of seizure of the contraband, when the
show cause notice was served on the petitioner. The following dates are not
in dispute:
The seizure was on 23.04.2003; the show cause notice is dated
16.10.2003 and the petitioner’s case is that, it was served on him on 30.10
.2003. Sub section (1) of Section 110 of the Customs Act enables the proper
officer, if he has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation
under the Act, to seize such goods. Under SubSection (2) of Section 110 of
the Act, when any goods are seized under Sub-Section (1) referred to above and
no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 of the
Customs Act within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be
returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Section 124 of
the Customs Act directs issue of a show cause notice before confiscation of
goods. Contending therefore that the show cause notice under section 124 of
the Customs Act has been served on the petitioner beyond the period of six
months from the date of seizure of the goods, the petitioner wants the goods
to be returned to him.
2. I applied my mind to the arguments advanced. The date of seizure
was on 23.04.2003. The show cause notice is issued under section 12 4 of the
Customs Act. The notice is dated 16.10.2003. Assuming that the show cause
notice was served on the petitioner only on 30.10.200 3, can it be said that
the show cause notice had been issued beyond the period of six months from the
date of seizure. A careful reading of Sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of the
Customs Act would show that a notice for confiscation as contemplated under
section 124 (a) of the Act should be given within six months from the date of
seizure of the goods. In other words, mere despatch of notice within a period
of six months would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of law as
provided for under Sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act.
3. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
date of service of such notice on the person concerned alone should be taken
into account to calculate the period of six months is accepted, then it would
end in hazardous results. In my opinion, that cannot be the correct
interpretation of Sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act. If the
date of service of notice on the person concerned alone should be the date to
be taken into account, then any person, on whom the notice is attempted to be
served, would evade receipt by avoiding and keeping the notice away from being
served on him for a period beyond six months and then he would put that as a
ground in the forefront to claim return of the goods. For such a construction
namely, the date of service of notice on the person concerned should be taken
into account in deciding the period of expiry of six months, I do not find any
support from the Statutory provision itself and referred to above. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would rely upon Section 153 of the Customs Act to
contend that the notice must have been served in the first instance personally
on the petitioner and failing such service only, it ought to have been served
by registered post. In this case, notice had been served under registered
post. A reading of section 153(a) of the Customs Act does not show the order
of priority in which any order or decision or any summons or notice issued
under the Act, must be served. In my considered opinion, the mode of service
as provided for in Sub-Clause (a) of Section 15 3 of the Customs Act is in the
alternative. In other words, the serving authority can adopt any one of the
modes prescribed therein. Therefore finding that the notice in this case is
shown to have been sent on 16.10.2003, I hold that there is strict compliance
of the requirement of Sub-Section (a) of section 110 of the Customs Act.
Consequently the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. W.P.M.P.No.385 05
of 2003 is closed.
Vsl
To
1.The Commissioner of Customs
(Airport), Customs House
33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 1
2.The Addl.Commissioner of Customs
(Airport), Anna International Airport
Chennai – 600 027