MAHESH NANDAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ALLAHABAD AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the partners of a firm styled as M/s. Brij Kishan Lal. The firm carried on business in Sharafa at Moradabad. On July 1, 1964, the Customs Authorities carried out a search of business premises of the firm and seized three biscuit tins containing gold ornaments. The petitioner's contention is that these gold ornaments were pawned by certain persons with the petitioner No. 1 Mahesh Nandan in his personal capacity and they were seized when he was taking them to Punjab National Bank to keep them in a locker. On November 27, 1974, fourteen notices dated November 21, 1974 were issued by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Rampur to the petitioner. By these notices the petitioners were required to show cause against the imposition of penalty for contravention of Rule 126 (C) (1) (a) of the Defence of India Rules for having issued to their workman gold ornaments of more than 14 carat purity. While these proceedings wore still pending, the firm received a notice dated January 12, 1965 which was issued superseding all previous notices requiring the firm to show cause against the imposition of penalty as well as against the confiscation of ornaments. Finally a fresh notice in the same terms dated December 22, 1972 was issued to the firm. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged these notices.

(2.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice for the confiscation of the ornaments having been issued within the period of six months from the date of their seizure, confiscation cannot take place. When the seizure took place on July 1, 1964 the Defence of India Rules under which action was taken did not provide for any period for the issuance of a notice for confiscation. As such a notice could be issued at any stage at any time. But the law was changed in 1965 with the promulgation of the Gold Control Act, 1965. Section 30 of the Gold Control Act is relevant and material portion is reproduced below: -

(3.) THE effect of Section 43 is that any action already taken under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 shall be deemed to have been taken under the corresponding provisions of the Gold Control Act of 1965. The implication is that the second proviso to Section 30 quoted above becomes applicable to the proceedings taken under the Defence of India Rules so that if no notice for confiscation has been given within a period of six months from the date of the seizure, the seized gold ornaments have to be returned.