The word "given" in Section 110(2) of the Customs Act should be construed in harmony with Sections 124(a) and 153, and a notice under Section 110(2) must be given in the manner provided in Section 153, which includes sending by registered post.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of Ajoy Nath Ray, J. dated 7th March, 1994 passed on a writ petition, where a writ of mandamus had been sought for release of the goods seized by the Customs Authorities and a writ of certiorary was prayed for quashing the show cause notice on the ground that the show cause notice was received by the writ petitioners after expiry of six months from the date of seizure.

( 2 ) BY the order the learned Judge directed the Appellants, Customs authorities, to return the seized goods to be respondents, writ, petitioners, within four weeks from the date of the order, and further directed that the show cause notice may be proceeded with, but only after return of the seized goods. The order further provided that the writ petitioners will be entitled to a hearing as provided by law and the proceedings shall be contained if, at all, in accordance with law and the writ petitioners will be entitled, if aggrieved, to move afresh against the order to be passed upon such further proceedings.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are summarised below :-On 14th November, 1992 a truck bearing No. WBL 5972 was intercepted by the personnel of the Border Security Force. The truck at the time of such interception was loaded with cycle parts. On 14th November, 1992 such cycle parts were handed over to the Inspector of Customs who in turn seized such cycle parts on the same day after preparation of an inventory of such seized goods. On 17th November, 1992 the writ petitioners, ten in number, claiming to be owners of such seized cycle parts, applied for release of the same. On 21st April, 1993 the Superintendent of Customs, Petrapole Circle, issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") to the writ petitioners directing them to appear before him in person or by authorised agents on 13th April, 1993 (wrongly written as 1992) at 12 hours. On 4th May, 1993 the Superintendent of Customs, Petrapole Circle, recorded statement of the writ petitioners in connection with the subject case. Thereafter, on 13th May, 1993 notices to show cause were issued and the same were sent to the writ petitioners by registered post. There is no disputes that the said notices were posted on 13th May, 1993 itself. On 17th May, 1993 the said notices were received by the writ petitioners. On 3rd June, 1993 the writ petitioners submitted their written replies to the Adjudicating Officer and contended that the seized goods should be returned to them. On 15th July, 1993 the writ petitioners applied for personal hearing, but the same was of no avail. In this background on 13th October, 1993 the writ petition was filed. 3. The writ petition was contested by the Customs Authorities by filing an affidavit to which a reply was filed by the writ petitioners. Thereafter, the matter came up for final disposal before Ray, J. when the learned Judge passed the order referred to above.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge took into account the following four dates as relevant dates to come to His Lordship's decision :-14th November, 1992 - Seizure of concerned goods 21st April, 1993 - Issuance of summons for appearance 13th May, 1993 - Issuance of show cause notices under Section 110 of the Act. 17th May, 1993 - Receipt of show cause notices by the writ petitioners.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge, thereafter, construed the provisions of Sections 110 (2) and Section 153 of the Act, a large number of judgments of different Courts and submissions of the parties and came to the following conclusion :-"in my opinion, Section 153 cannot control the meaning of the word 'given' in Section 110, Sub-section (2), in the cases where the addressee is shown to have actually received the notice. In such cases, the addressee is given notice only upon receipt and not merely upon posting. "

( 6 ) THE main contention of the appellants in this appeal, as contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, is that the word "given", as occurring in Section