VIPIN CHANANA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise identical issues therefore they are disposed of by a common order. The petitioners in both the cases have imported photocopiers machines. After clearance, the said photocopier machines were stored in their respective godowns. At that point of time seizures were made on 06.09.2010 and 16.09.2010 insofar as the petitioner (Vipin Chanana) is concerned. As regards Sanjeev Goel the seizures were made on 11.09.2010 and 05.10.10.

(2.) The simple point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that since no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners within one year of the date of seizures, the goods are to be returned to the petitioners unconditionally by virtue of the provisions of section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) The counter affidavits that have been filed on behalf of the respondents admit the position that no show cause notice has been issued till date which makes it clear that no show cause notice was issued within one year of the said seizures. As such, section 110(2) of the said Act would come into play. Section 110(2) specifically mandates that when any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months or within the further extended period of six months (totaling one year) of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized.