SHA MOOLCHAND PRAOPCHANDJI GANDHI Vs. C C (AIRPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Return of the seized goods is asked for on the ground that a period of six months have elapsed from the date of seizure of the contraband, when the show cause notice was served on the petitioner. The following dates are not in dispute :

(2.) I applied my mind to the arguments advanced. The date of seizure was on 23-4-2003. The show cause notice is issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The notice is dated 16-10-2003. Assuming that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner only on 30-10-2003, can it be said that the show cause notice had been issued beyond the period of six months from the date of seizure. A careful reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act would show that a notice for confiscation as contemplated under Section 124(a) of the Act should be given within six months from the date of seizure of the goods, In other words, mere despatch of notice within a period of six months would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of law as provided for under Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act.

(3.) If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of service of such notice on the person concerned alone should be taken into account to calculate the period of six months is accepted, then it would end in hazardous results. In my opinion, that cannot be the correct interpretation of subsection (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act. If the date of service of notice on the person concerned alone should be the date to be taken into account, then any person, on whom the notice is attempted to be served, would evade receipt by avoiding and keeping the notice away from being served on him for a period beyond six months and then he would put that as a ground in the forefront to claim return of the goods. For such a construction namely, the date of service of notice on the person concerned should be taken into account in deciding the period of expiry of six months, I do not find any support from the Statutory provision itself and referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon Section 153 of the Customs Act to contend that the notice must have been served in the first instance personally on the petitioner and failing such service only, it ought to have been served by registered post. In this case, notice had been served under registered post. A reading of Section 153(a) of the Customs Act does not show the order of priority in which any order or decision or any summons or notice issued under the Act, must be served. In my considered opinion, the mode of service as provided for in Sub-clause (a) of Section 153 of the Customs Act is in the alternative. In other words, the serving authority can adopt any one of the modes prescribed therein. Therefore finding that the notice in this case is shown to have been sent on 16-10-2003, I hold that there is strict compliance of the requirement of Sub-section (a) of Section 110 of the Customs Act. Consequently the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. W.P.M.P. No. 385 05 of 2003 is closed.