M.M. HASSAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, declining interference to the proceedings initiated pursuant to search and seizure evidenced by Exhibit P11 mahazar and Exhibit P19 ex parte order, extending the period for issuing a notice under Section 124, as also release of the gold seized as per Exhibit P11.

(2.) On facts, it is only to be noticed that there was a proceeding initiated pursuant to a search and seizure carried out in the premises of the 2nd appellant on 16.10.2019. Huge quantity of gold, specifically 4392.05 grams, were recovered from the Air Conditioner in the 2nd appellant's business premises. The 2nd appellant is carrying on a jewellery and so is the 1 st appellant. The explanation offered for the seized gold was that the 1st and 2nd appellants were having regular transactions by which the 1 st appellant entrusted gold with the 2nd appellant for conversion into ornaments. Exhibits P9 and P10 series are produced to establish such transactions having occurred. We immediately observe that we are not called upon to consider the justifiability of the seizure; nor are we called upon to adjudicate the source or ownership of the seized gold. The appellants too are now concerned with only the confiscation and further investigation by the Customs Department. The appellants contend that, the period for issuance of notice for confiscation having expired; the seized gold has to be released and there could be no further proceedings continued. After the seizure a notice was required to be issued within six months as provided under the Customs Act , 1962 [' Customs Act ' for brevity]. Though the period was extended there was no notice or hearing granted before the time was extended.

(3.) We have heard Sri.Asaf Ali learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Sri.P.K.Sajeevan and Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms.Krishna.