IQBAL HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 14.08.2015, whereby the gold brought into India by him was seized by the customs authorities. It is the petitioner's case that after having worked for a few years in the UAE, on his way homewards he purchased from his earnings, gold weighing 580.67 grams for the purpose of his son's marriage. On his arrival at the Delhi Airport, while he was still waiting to receive his luggage from the conveyor belt, and even before he could take the same for declaration to the Customs Authorities at the Red Channel counter, he was questioned by the Customs Authorities. The gold which was kept in his suitcase was seized and a Panchnama was prepared confirming the quantum of gold. The difference between the versions of the petitioner and the respondent/Customs Authorities is that, while the former claims that he had not even received his luggage and therefore could not proceed to cross the Red Channel/ customs duty declaration counter and had otherwise intended to declare the gold to the Customs Authorities, therefore, there was no question of him seeking to conceal it or to bring it into India illegitimately; the latter, however, states that the petitioner had crossed the Green Channel and was intercepted thereafter.

(2.) Be that as it may, the quantum of gold seized by the Customs Authorities on 14.08.2015 is not in dispute. The petitioner has sought release of the same since no notice has been served upon him within six months of the said seizure. Such notice is mandatory under Sec. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act), in compliance with Sec. 124 and in the manner prescribed in Sec. 153 of the Act. The respondent, however, contends that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.02016, which was well within the stipulated six months from the date of seizure of the goods; the notice was posted through Speed Post on the same date. It is further contended that a copy of the show cause notice was also pasted on the Notice Board of the customs house in compliance with Sec. 153 of the Act; therefore, it would be deemed to be due notice, hence the petitioner's claim for release of the gold after expiry of six months' period is untenable; there has been no violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has failed to file a reply to the show cause notice. It is further contended that the gold was imported with mala fide intention of smuggling it into India, particularly since 21 pieces of the gold were coated in a white substance and the other four cut pieces were fitted in the body of the suitcase, which is an unusual way of carrying gold. This was an indicative of the petitioner's mens rea to smuggle the gold.

(3.) Before dwelling into the merits of the contentions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant legal framework concerning the proceedings.