Durga Das vs Union of India and Others

Balia, J.

(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Cenlral Excise and Customs, Jaipur dt. 10th May, 1978 (Ex.3) and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs dt. 23rd July, 1980 (Ex.5) as affirmed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi vide its order dated 12th February, 1988 (Ex.9). The review against which was dismissed by the CEG vide order dt. 14th January, 1989 (Ex.11).

(3). The brief facts giving rise to this case are that while the petitioner was travelling in a bus for Balotra/Jodhpur on 24.11.76, he was searched in pursuance of an information by the local police of Barmer. The petitioner was found in possession of nine gold coins bearing PAK marking and weighing in terms of pure gold 104.600 gms. and primary gold in the form of four patlis having purity of 23 cts. weighing 465.400 gms. Thus the total contraband gold was found in possession of the petitioner by the police on 24.11.76 which was weighing 570 gms.

(4). The police after its own investigation handed over the gold to the Customs Department to be proceeded under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act on 22.2.77 and in order of seizure of said gold u/S. 110(1) of the Customs Act read with Section 66 of Gold (Control) Act was also passed on 22nd February, 1977.

(5). Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd August, 1977 u/S. 111 of the Customs Act read with Section 71 for showing cause against the proposed action of confiscating the contraband gold found in possession of the petitioner as well as three other connected with him and believed to be indulging in trading of contraband gold. Proceedings for confiscating the said gold u/S. 111 and 68 of the Gold Control Act, as noticed above ended in order of confiscation made against the petitioner.

(6). The only contenlion raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking a writ to quash the orders Annexure/3. Annexure/5, Annexure/9 and Annexure/11, that since seizure order was first made by the police on 24.11.76 and information was conveyed to the Custom Departmenl on 26.11.76 of the said seizure, but no notice was issued for proposed confiscation within six months therefrom, no jurisdiction was left with the Customs Deptt. to issue notice u/S. I24(a) r/w Sec. 110(2) to issue notice for the proposed action of confiscation and goods were liable to be returned to petitioner. He places reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs and ors. vs. Bibhuli Bhushan Bagh & Anr. (1), in support of his contention.

(7). The decision in I.J. Rao''s case, we are of the opinion, is of little assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances narrated above.

(8). Having carefully considered the contentions raised before us and facls noticed by us, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention. There is no denial of the fact that notwithstanding the petitioner was apprehended by local police on 24.11.76 and was found to possess 570 grms. gold of contraband gold on his person on that day and information of such possession having been conveyed to the Customs Deptt. soon after the said gold was handed over to the Customs Deptt. only on 22nd Feb. 1977 to be proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act and Gold Control Act by the authorities thereunder. u/s 110 of the Customs Act, order of seizure was made for the first time by the authorities under the Customs Act on 22nd Feb. 1977. When the said gold was handed over to the Customs Authorities. The seizure order under Customs Act came into existence only on 22nd Feb. 1977. There was no order of seizure u/S. 110 of the Customs Act prior to 22.2.77. Undoubtedly, notice showing cause against the proposed action of confiscation was issued within six months on 3rd August, 1977.

(9). In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no factual foundation exists to support the contention of the learned counsel.

(10). Section 110(2) of the Customs Act read with Section 124 clearly postulates the period of limitation prescribed for issuing notice under clause (a) of Section 124 is within six months of the seizure of goods under sub-section (1) of Sec. 110. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 which prescribes period for issuing notice u/S. 124(a) does not speak of the seizure of goods de-hors the provisions of Customs Act for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation within which notice u/S. 124(a) was required to be issued.

(11). In that view of the matter, we have no hesilation in coming to the conclusion that notice issued on 3rd August, 1977 was within six months from the date of order of seizure was made under Sec. 110 of the Act of 1962 by the Competent Officer.

(12). No other contention is raised.

(13). Thus the petition must fail and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.