C V KUNJAN Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is Ext. P6 - order dated February 23, 1970 of the respondent, the Assistant Collector or Customs, confiscating certain watches, watch straps and fountain pens seized from the petitioner who is a stationery merchant at Ernakulam, that is sought to be quashed here. It was on July 31, 1969 that the seizure was effected. The seizure was made under peculiar circumstances from the Advocate of the petitioner. There was a previous seizure of the same goods. That was on March 31, 1967. The petitioner filed Crl. M. P. 240 of 1967 before this Court to quash the proceedings relating to that seizure. That petition was dismissed Thereafter he filed O. P. 1555 of 1967 for quashing the proceedings. That was allowed on June 23, 1969 and the goods were directed to be returned to the petitioner. The respondent then sent Ext. P2. communication on July 10, 1969 to the petitioner directing him to take delivery of the goods in view of the decision in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967. By Ext. P3 letter dated July 24, 1969 the petitioner informed the respondent that the petitioner's Advocate would appear before the respondent for taking delivery of the goods. As mentioned in that letter the Advocate appeared before the respondent on July 31, 1969. It was then that the second seizure evidenced by Ext. P4 dated July 31, 1969 was made,

(2.) It is mentioned in the last column of Ext. P4 that the goods were released to the Advocate pursuant to the decision of this Court in O. P. No. 1955 of 1967 and that thereafter it was seized from him. But no acknowledgment was taken from him for receipt of the goods. No doubt the Advocate has signed at the bottom of Ext. P4. But that was only in acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of Ext. P4.

(3.) It was under S.110 of the Customs Act, 52 of 1962, that the two seizures were made. The relevant portion of that Section reads: