Back
A.M.AHMADI, M.M.PUNCHHI
Harbans Lal – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise And Customs, Chandigarh – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The two provisions Ss. 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 are independent and distinct, such that proceedings under S.124 can continue even if S.110(2) extension invalidates or affects seizure timing. (!) (!) - A notice under S.124 is mandatory for confiscation or imposition of penalties, and its validity is not contingent on the seizure period under S.110, which only governs the seizure and return of goods. (!) (!) - The object of S.110 is to facilitate investigation by providing consequences for noninitiation of proceedings within the prescribed seizure period, while S.124 governs confiscation and penalties; thus, initiation of S.124 proceedings can survive despite issues with S.110 extensions. (!) (!) - The High Court's view that S.110(2) extensions being void does not nullify S.124 proceedings upholding their independence is affirmed. (!) - The decision cites Charandas Malhotras, I. J. Rao v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bag, and Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey v. Mondkar to support the separation of seizure validity from confiscation/penalty proceedings. (!) (!) - The appellant’s challenge to jurisdiction based on ex parte extensions was rejected; the proceedings under S.124 proceeded and the appeal was dismissed. (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies that if goods are not seized within the period, they must be returned, but that does not suspend S.124 proceedings; notice under S.124 remains mandatory. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
PUNCHHI, J.:—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, dated August 7, 1979, passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4206 of 1973, raising an important question of law, whether Ss. 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are inter se independent, distinct and exclusive or are they inter-woven, inter-connected and inter-playing, on the answer of which depends the survival or otherwise of proceedings for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, under Chapter XIV of the Act.
2. On March 4, 1970, Harbans Lal, the appellant herein, was arrested and a huge quantity of gold, currency notes and other articles were seized from his possession. The seizure was effected under Chapter XIII of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) of S. I 10 occurring in that Chapter provides that where any goods are seized under sub-sec. (1) of S. 110 and if no notice in respect thereof is given under Cl. (a) of S. 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized; provided that the period of six months may, on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
