The Court held that the extension order was made within the period of six months and it cannot therefore be said that the petitioner had acquired any right to the return of the goods. The order of extension merely enlarged the time within which the department was to complete its investigation. There was in the Court's view, no determination of a question affecting the rights of the petitioner.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for appropriate writs and orders directing the respondents to recall and cancel the seizure of the petitioner's goods and also an order dated December 5, 1965, authorising detention of the petitioner's goods and from giving any effect to the said order. There is a further prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release and return to the petitioner the goods, books, papers and documents seized by the Customs authorities and a further writ restraining the respondents from starting any proceedings on the basis of the seizure and also detention of the goods.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the sole proprietor of a firm known as Anglo-Swiss Watch Company. On December 1, December 2, December 3 and December 5, 1965 the Customs authorities conducted searches at the petitioner's business premises and also in the show-room, factory and residence of the petitioner and seized various goods and documents. Thereafter the Customs Officers made inquiries and investigations regarding the violation by the petitioner of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Customs Act, 1962. It is alleged that with regard to the import of parts of Watches, Clocks and Time-pieces, show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962, could not be served upon the petitioner within the prescribed period of six months from the date of tile seizure as required by Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

( 3 ) ON December 5, 1965, an order was made by the Customs authorities under the proviso to Section 110 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, whereby the petitioner was directed not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of the respondents No. 3. With regard to this order the petitioner's case is that there was no material on the basis of which the respondents could have any reason to believe that the goods or any of them were liable to confiscation under the Act in the petition there is a challenge to the vires of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that it confers upon the Customs Officer an absolute arbitrary, untrammelled and uncontrolled power without laying down any standard or principle for his guidance, and enables a Customs Officer to pick and choose any person for the favour of giving premission to deal with the goods so detained, and for that reason the said provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it denies equal protection of laws to the owner or holder of goods. There is also a challenge to the vires of Section 110 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) and (g) and 31 (1) of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THE seizure of the goods was followed by criminal proceedings against the petitioner and by an order dated 29th June 1966 the petitioner was discharged from one of the said proceedings and by another order dated August 26, 1967, the petitioner was again discharged in a second criminal case in which a proclamation was issued against the petitioner. This proclamation was also recalled.

( 5 ) IN exercise of the powers under the proviso to section 110 (2) of the Act, an order was made whereby the period of six months was extended by two months with effect from June 1, 1966, and this order of extension was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated May 30. 1966. The petitioner's contention is that the said order of extension was passed ex parte and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the said extension and without hearing him. It was also contended that it was incumbent on the Customs authorities to serve notice on the petitioner before making the order of extension, and also to give him an opportunity of being heard, on the question whether extension of tune should be granted or not. It is alleged that there was no cause or sufficient cause justifying extension of time and the order was pass