Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Abdulla Kunhi Abdul Rahaman, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking quashing of a communication/letter dated 05.06.2014 (Annexure-F) issued by the third respondent, and for release of seized gold. The petitioner's gold was seized on 05.12.2013 by the respondents, who are customs and revenue intelligence officers. The petitioner contended that no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act, which mandates that notice must be issued within six months of seizure. The respondents argued that the period was extendable and that the petitioner had not cooperated. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the seizure had occurred on 05.12.2013 and that no notice under Section 124 had been issued within six months, i.e., by 04.06.2014. The court held that the continued seizure beyond the statutory period without issuance of notice was illegal and directed the respondents to release the gold to the petitioner forthwith. The court also noted that the respondents could proceed with adjudication in accordance with law if they chose to do so.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Seizure of Goods - Section 110(2) and Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 - Mandatory Period for Issuance of Notice - The petitioner's gold was seized on 05.12.2013 and no notice under Section 124 was issued within six months as required under Section 110(2). The court held that the continued seizure beyond the statutory period without issuance of notice is illegal and directed release of the gold. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the continued seizure of gold is illegal due to non-issuance of notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The letter dated 05.06.2014 (Annexure-F) is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the gold seized from the petitioner forthwith. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with adjudication in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with Section 110(2) of Customs Act
- 1962
- Non-issuance of notice under Section 124 within six months renders continued seizure illegal
- Right to release of seized goods upon expiry of statutory period
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (04) 85
Writ Petition No.35408/2014 (T-TAR)
Nagendra Murthy.M for V.R. Balasubramani (for petitioner), Jeevan J. Neeralgi (for respondents)
K. Abdulla Kunhi Abdul Rahaman
Additional Commissioner of Customs, Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru; The Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bengaluru; The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bengaluru
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the continued seizure of gold and seeking its release.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of letter dated 05.06.2014 (Annexure-F) and order for release of seized gold.
Filing Reason
Non-issuance of notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.
Issues
Whether the continued seizure of gold is illegal due to non-issuance of notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that gold was seized on 05.12.2013 and no notice under Section 124 was issued within six months as required under Section 110(2), making continued seizure illegal.
Respondents argued that the period was extendable and that the petitioner had not cooperated.
Ratio Decidendi
The continued seizure of goods beyond the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 without issuance of notice under Section 124 is illegal, and the petitioner is entitled to release of the seized goods.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner is praying for quashing of communication/letter dated 05.06.2014, Annexure-F, issued by third respondent, contending interalia that non issuance of notice under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act has given right to release of seized gold.
In the instant case, the seizure is dated 05.12.2013 and admittedly no notice under Section 124 of the Act has been issued within six months i.e., on or before 04.06.2014. Hence, the continued seizure is illegal and petitioner is entitled for release of gold.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on an unspecified date, challenging the letter dated 05.06.2014 and seeking release of seized gold. The petition came up for preliminary hearing on 22.04.2015, when the court made the order.
Acts & Sections
- Customs Act, 1962: 110(2), 124
