HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. N. Banerjee
CHARANDAS MALHOTRA - Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Respondent
Matter 101 Of 1964
Decided On : APRIL 19, 1966
CUSTOMS ACT - Section 110 - Extension of time for issuing show cause notice - Reasonable belief for search and seizure - Interpretation of 'reasonable belief' - Liability to confiscation - Interpretation of 'prohibited goods' and 'smuggling'.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's business premises were searched by the Customs Department, and 131 foreign-made watches were seized. The petitioner was asked to produce documents to prove the legal importation of the watches, but he failed to do so. The Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice to the petitioner, directing him to explain why the watches should not be confiscated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Collector of Customs has the authority to grant multiple extensions of time for issuing a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, as long as each extension does not exceed six months. 2. The reasonable belief required for search and seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, must be objectively formed and based on definite information or materials. 3. The liability to confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, depends on whether the goods are prohibited goods or have been smuggled into India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector of Customs can grant multiple extensions of time for issuing a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. What is the meaning of 'reasonable belief' in the context of search and seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. What is the meaning of 'prohibited goods' and 'smuggling' in the context of liability to confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not limit the Collector's authority to grant only one extension of time, up to a maximum period of six months, at the outset. It authorizes the Collector to grant extensions of time not extending six months at a time. 2. The reasonable belief required for search and seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, must be objectively formed and based on definite information or materials. It cannot be based on subsequent acquisition of belief. 3. The liability to confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, depends on whether the goods are prohibited goods or have been smuggled into India. 'Prohibited goods' are defined in Section 2(33) of the Act, and 'smuggling' is defined in Section 2(89).
Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rule with costs, holding that the impugned notice was valid and that the Customs authorities had acted within their powers.
( 1 ) THE petitioner carries on business as a dealer in watches, clocks, time-pieces, etc. , under the trade name, "wallton Watch Company", at No. 12 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. On March 19, 1963, there was a search of the business premises of the petitioner conducted by the Rummaging Staff of the Customs Department. In course of the search 218 pieces of foreign made watches were found in the premises, but, on scrutiny of whatever documents the petitioner could produce at that time, 87 watches were released and 131 watches were included in a seizure list and were seized. Towards the end of the search the petitioner made the following statement, which was recorded by an officer of the Customs Department:"i, Sri Charan Das Malhotra son of late Harbhas Rai Malhotra do hereby state that I have produced all the watches to you in my possession. I do not have any watches anywhere else for production to you. I have produced bills against some of the watches for your inspection. I am, however, very unwell and I am not in a position to produce further vouchers or receipts against watches shown in the inventory I shall, however, produce the same for your inspection as early as possible. I do state that I purchased twenty four watches from the Custom House sales in the year 1957 or 1958. Out of this quantity I have sold all except two watches which I have produced to you and which I surrender herewith to you. I do hereby state that I make this statement voluntarily. "thereafter, between March 28, 1963 and May 6, 1963, the petitioner wrote several letters either to the respondent Assistant Collector or to the Additional Collector of Customs, either offering to produce further documents or asking for expeditious conclusion of the investigation and release of the said watches. Out of the said letters, I need quote below the letter dated May 6, 1963:"in connexion with the above I have to state that most of the watches are very old stock, some of which were previously owned by my concern named Welcan Watch Co. , 170 Harrison Road, Calcutta, which was closed in the year 1955 and its stock in trade was then transferred to this concern. Two watches namely Drive Geneva and Record were seized by the Rummaging Staff of your department during their raid of my said shop, Welcan Watch Co. on 16-2-55 and were subsequently released as per your File No. S 12 (IV/t) 26/55p. Purchase vouchers of a watch was destroyed by white ants and the same was shown to the I. O. concerned. Vouchers for other watches are being submitted to your office for perusal and verification. You are requested to please expedite investigation and order early release. "to the above letter, a Rummaging Inspector of the Customs Department sent The following reply, on June 21, 1963:"please refer to your letter dated 6th May, 1963 forwarding vouchers, bills, invoice, etc. relating to the seized watches. These vouchers, however, do not cover all the watches seized from you and your representative Shri Sundarlal Lala who came to deliver the abovementioned vouchers and assured that the remaining vouchers would be submitted as soon as possible but none of them has since been forwarded. You are accordingly requested to send the wanting vouchers immediately and at least within a week hereof. You are also requested to produce your Stock Book within the same period for verification of your Stock of watches. "the petitioner sent the following reply to the above letter, on July 5, 1963:"with reference to the above I have to state that I have already submitted to you a letter from Messrs. Benson Watch Co. , 31, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta regarding the purchase of some watches from them. One watch with the brand name EMES was purchased by me long ago from Messrs. M. S. Watch Co. , 138, Radha Bazar Street, Calcutta. Unfortunately I have either lost the purchase voucher or it has perhaps been eaten by moth which destroyed some of my old records. I have, however, requested the sai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.