The main legal point established in the judgment is that goods seized under the Customs Act must be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized if no show cause notice is issued within the prescribed time limit.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus, thereby, directing the respondents to unconditionally release the gold kara (bracelet) seized/detained by Detention Memo dated 11.02.2015.

2. It is contended that on 11.02.2015, the petitioner arrived from Dubai at IGI Airport Terminal T-3. The petitioner was intercepted by the Custom Officers at the exit gate before crossing the green channel and was questioned for detainable goods being in his possession. It is contended that the gold kara (bracelet), owned by the petitioner, was seized on the ground that gold kara (bracelet) is imported from Dubai. Detention Memo dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure P – 2) was issued.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sought release of the gold kara (bracelet) alongwith supporting documents to show that the said gold kara (bracelet) was his ancestral jewellery and was owned by him even before leaving for Dubai. The representation of the petitioner was not accepted and the gold kara (bracelet) was not released and has, till date, not been released.

4. Petitioner relies on Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for release of the gold kara (bracelet). It is contended that since the Custom Authorities have not issued any show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act for seizure of the gold kara (bracelet), the gold kara (bracelet) is liable to be released.

5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Salman Khan vs. Union of India, 2016 (337) ELT 513 (Del).

6. Notice in the petition was issued on 31.03.2016 and the respondents were permitted to file a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

7. It is contended by counsel for the Respondents that the gold kara (bracelet) of the petitioner has not been seized but has merely been detained. It is submitted that the detention was on account of the fact that the gold kara (bracelet) was needed to be appraised/cleared as per Rules. The Detention Receipt dated 11.02.2015 is relied upon, which in paragraph 7(a) thereof indicates the reasons for detention i.e. “appraisement and clearance as per Rules”.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that since the gold kara (bracelet) of the petitioner has not been seized, section 110(2) of the Act has no applicability. He submits that the said section applies only in case of seizure of the goods and not in case of detention.

9. It is further contended that the petitioner was to present himself for the purposes of appraisal and clearance of the gold kara (bracelet). Since the petitioner did not present himself, the gold kara (bracelet) could not be appraised and, accordingly, cleared. It is the contention of the respondents that since the petitioner did not cooperate with the respondents, the gold kara (bracelet) cannot be released. It is only on appraisal of the gold kara (bracelet) that the authorities would be in a position to take a decision whether to seize the goods or not and it is only thereafter that the limitation, as prescribed by sub-Section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act, would be triggered. Since the petitioner has not presented himself for appraisal, the seizure has not taken place and, accordingly, there is no question of issuance of any notice under Section 124(a) of the Act.

10. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:-

"110. Seizure of goods, documents and things.—

(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 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 aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months.

11. Reading of Section 110(2) clearly shows that where any goods have been seized under Sub-Section (1) and