Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Aravind Kumar, J.
K. Abdulla Kunhi Abdul Rahaman - Appellant
Vs.
Additional Commissioner of Customs and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 35408/2014 (T-TAR)
Decided On : 22.04.2015
For the Appellant :Nagendra Murthy M. for V.R. Balasumbramani, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Adv.
Headnote:CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - Sections 124 & 110(2): [Aravind Kumar, J] Notice under Section 124 - Time limit - Carrying of gold biscuits in shoes - Seizure Mahazar dated 16.9.2013 - Notice under Section 110(2) issued on 13.3.2014 - Held, Section 110(2) indicates where goods are seized under Section 110(1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Section 124(a) within six (6) months of the seizure, such goods are to be returned under Section 124(a) of the Act. No confiscation of goods imposition of penalty can be passed or levied without issuance of notice in writing unless waived by person concerned. In the instant case goods came to be confiscated by the proper officer on 16.09.2013. Show cause notice came to be issued on 13.03.2014 i.e., before expiry of six months period prescribed i.e., before 15.03.2014. Section 153 controls Section 110(2). Thus, date of sending or dispatching the notice by registered post is the date of giving the notice as contemplated under Section 110(2) of the act. The object in setting the time limit under Section 110(2) of the Act was not to harass the citizen from whom goods have been seized and keep the kettle boiling, but to ensure that proceedings are commenced or started within six (6) months from date of such confiscation. The date of service of notice cannot be held as one which entitles the petitioner to seek for return of the goods on the ground that six months period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act had expired. A conjoint reading of Section 110(2), Section 124(a) and Section 153 of the Act would clearly indicate that any notice which is required to be issued under the Act can be served by such authority either by tendering such notice to the addressee/notice in person or by sending/dispatching it by registered post and this exercise of issuing such notice should be undertaken before expiry of six months period.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Word "Given": [Aravind Kumar, J] Meaning of word "given" in Section 110(2) or 124 of Customs Act, 1962 - It is well settled proposition of law that true meaning of the words and expressions used by the legislature must be given effect to and Courts must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the object to be achieved while interpreting the words used in a statute. Writ Petition dismissed.
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri. Nagendra Murthy M. learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. V.R. Balasubramani for petitioner and Sri. Jeevan Neeralagi, learned panel counsel appearing for respondents.
2. Petitioner is praying for quashing of communication/letter dated 05.06.2014, Annexure-F, issued by third respondent, contending inter alia that non issuance of notice under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act') within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act has given right to the petitioner to seek for return of seized goods and as such, petitioner is contending retention of seized goods (gold) by the respondents is illegal and they are to be returned to petitioner as prayed for and rejection of petitioner's claim is bad in law.
3. The factual matrix which has given rise to filing of this writ petition can be crystallised as under:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI' for short) on receipt of specific intelligence input that one Sri. K. Abdulla Kunhi Abdul Rahaman, resident of Kannikkad House, No. 05/386, Alampady, Kallakkatta Post, Kasargode District would be arriving at Bengaluru by Air India Flight No. A1 994 on 16.09.2013 and would attempt to smuggle gold without payment of applicable customs duty, had intercepted said passenger namely petitioner herein while he was attempting to exit himself through Green Channel of customs area and on verification of travel documents by the DRI Authorities it was found that petitioner was a holder of Indian Passport on whom they had specific intelligence input and on examination of baggage, which was carried by petitioner and on same being scanned, it was found from his personal search that two chits were recovered from his upper shirt pocket revealing two other persons by name Sri. Haneefa and Sri. Abdul Khader were traveling along with him and on enquiry by DRI Officers petitioner is said to have conceded before authorities that he had brought gold biscuits from Dubai to Bengaluru via Goa through two domestic passengers namely, Sri. Haneefa and Sri. Abdul Khader, who had accompanied him in the same flight and were given pair of shoes during the flight and were asked to wear said shoes which sole was said to be concealed with a smuggled gold biscuits.
4. The DRI Officers with the assistance of petitioner intercepted above said two domestic passengers also at the exit of customs Green Channel area and after verification and enquiry and body search being conducted, as agreed to by them, they handed over a pair of black coloured bata shoes, which is said to have handed over to them by petitioner and had been requested to wear the same and on examination of said shoes it was found that it contained a cavity at the sole area concealing four wrapped black coloured plastic papers and on being cut open, it was found that three gold biscuits weighing 116.6 grams each was concealed and one cut piece weighing 63.76 grams with foreign markings upon them. Likewise, on opening of other shoes also gold biscuits were found not only from Sri. Haneefa but also from Sri. Abdul Khader. Accordingly, mahazar came to be drawn and statement of petitioner and other two persons came to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Notice under Section 110(2) of the Act came to be issued on 13.03.2014 to petitioner herein as to why said gold biscuits with foreign markings seized under the mahazar dated 16.09.2013, which was smuggled into India as indicated in the mahazar should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), 111(l), 111(m) of the Act. Apart from confiscation of material used for packing and concealment in terms of Section 118(a) and 119 of the Act and apart from levying penalty on petitioner and two others and confiscation of the seized gold items also under Section 114AA of the Act vide Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2014 referred to hereinabove at Annexure-A. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner had f
