BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting but short question has been raised by Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Some goods were seized from the petitioner/appellant on 27th Feb., 2001. A notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was issued to the petitioner/appellant herein on 21st of Aug., 2001, by speed post. This notice was returned with the postal remark that the petitioner was out of town and despite several attempts, the notice could not be served. Six months expired on 27th Aug., 2001. Subsequently, in the proceedings, the representative of the petitioner appeared and had accepted the said notice on 23rd Sept., 2002. All these facts are admitted.

(2.) On this background, Mr. Dutta has contended that by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, the petitioner became entitled to return of the seized goods and the customs authorities became liable to return the seized goods to the person from whom it was seized. The notice having not been served in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act, the condition contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Section 110 was not satisfied. As such, the petitioner was entitled to return of the goods. Section 124 relates to the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty, whereas Section 153 deals with service of notice, etc. issued under the Act. A notice under Section 124 is definitely a notice, which is required to be served in the manner provided in Section 153. Section 110(2), Section 124 and Section 153 are to be read together and be given a reconciled meaning. He has sought to interpret the word "given" used in Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) taking aid of the dictionary meaning. He has relied on Webster's Third New International Edition, p. 959, and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary at p. 795. Third Edition. He has also relied on Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary Indian Edition, 2nd Reprint, p. 353. He has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in order to show that the dictionary meaning can be relied upon. He has also relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court where the learned Single Judge had accepted the proposition that in order to interpret the meaning of a particular word, the dictionary can be relied upon. He has also relied upon various decisions of the High Courts and the apex Court where the word "give" has been interpreted to mean "serve". Some of these also relate to Section 110(2) r/w Section 124(a). It also relates to some provisions of the Gold Control Act and the IT Act containing identical provisions, Therefore, according to him, since no notice was given under Section 124(a) within the meaning of Section 110(2) in the manner provided in Section 153, the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized goods and the customs authorities were liable to return the same.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent-Revenue Mr. Biswanath Samaddar, learned counsel, and Mr. Shibdas Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing with him, on the other hand, has contended that Section 124(a) and Section 110(2) of the Customs Act has used the expression "given", whereas Section 153 deals with service. There is a distinction between "giving of notice" and "service of notice". After a notice is given, the same is served. Sections 110(2) and 124(a) speak of giving of notice not of service. Then again Section 110(2) does not contemplate any penal consequence on the petitioner. Therefore, the expression "giving" is to be interpreted in the context in which it has been used and not in the strict sense of Section 153 and Section 28. Even Section 153 provides for two alternative mode of service in Clause (a) and Clause (b) Clause (b) can be resorted to only when notice cannot be served under Clause (a). Therefore, as soon the notice was issued within six months, the mischief of Section 110(2) was avoided by the customs authority. With these contentions, the decision of the learned Single Judge was sought to be supported on behalf of the Revenue.