MANIKANT RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Present applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to return the Jeep bearing registration Nos. BPG 915 and BHJ 6262 seized on 20.7.1995 in Patna seizure Case No.14 of 1995 as the show cause notice has been served upon the petitioners after expiry of the mandatory period of six months as envisaged under section 110(2) read with section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The sole contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as the show-cause notice was received by the petitioner on 1.2.1996 which was beyond the prescribed period as envisaged under the Act, as such, custom authorities do not have any option but to release the vehicles in question and the articles.

(3.) In support of the said contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1995 Cri. .L.J.1 (Oyatape Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta) in which word 'given' as occurring in sections 110(2) and 124 (a) of the Customs Act has been interpreted and it has been held that either show-cause notice should have been received by the importer or at least the same should have reached him. When no show-cause was received by the petitioner after the period of six months from the date of seizure as prescribed in section 110 (2) of the Act, the custom authorities have no option but to release the goods in favour of the petitioner.