Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Dal Thang and Ors.
Vs.
State of Mizoram and Ors.
W.P.(C) No. 2985 of 2003
Decided On: 10.03.2004
Customs Act - Seizure of Motorcycles - Sections 3, 4A of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 - [110, 124] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, which require the issuance of notice in case of seizure of goods and before confiscation of goods or imposing any penalty. The court also referred to the decision in (The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra) which emphasized the requirement of giving an opportunity of being heard to the persons whose articles are seized as contraband. The court concluded that all the required formalities relating to the procedure as envisaged under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 were duly followed and complied with, and the petitioners were aware of the confiscation proceeding and the final adjudication orders passed. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be residents of Aizwal, Mizoram, originally from Myanmar, initiated a writ proceeding in respect of the seizure of 4 motorcycles by custom officials on suspicion of being carried to Myanmar. The custom authority moved the court by filing Criminal Revision No. 1/2002 after the Magistrate ordered the release of the motorcycles. The petitioners sought various directions and relief in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were aware of the confiscation proceeding and the final adjudication orders passed, and they were not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the seizure of motorcycles, issuance of notice, and compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The court also considered the petitioners' claim of not receiving any notice relating to the confiscation proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of giving an opportunity of being heard to the persons whose articles are seized as contraband, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The court concluded that all the required formalities relating to the procedure were duly followed and the petitioners were aware of the confiscation proceeding and the final adjudication orders passed.
Final Decision: The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition. The court also clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition and any observations made will not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appellate authorities as provided under the Customs Act, 1962.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The four petitioners involved in this writ petition claiming themselves to be the residents of Aizwal, Mizoram, although originally belonged to Myanmar have initiated this writ proceeding in respect of seizure of 4 nos. of Hero Honda Motor Cycles from their custody on 8.4.2002 in a place called Keifang in the State of Mizoram. Such seizure was by the custom officials on suspicion that the petitioners were foreign nationals and the Motorcycles were being carried to Myanmar. A case was registered under the Customs Act, 1962 read with Export Control Order No. 1/77 dated 24.3.1977 issued under Sections 3 and 4A of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The customs officials registered Custom Seizure Case No. 11/CL/EXP/CUST/AS-AIZ/2002 dated. 8.4.2002 and No. 12/CL/EXP/CUST/AS-AIZ/2002 dated 8.4.2002.
2. The petitioners were arrested and Aizawl Police Case No. 175/02 under Section 6(a) PP Rules 1950 was registered against them. The petitioners were eventually released on bail on 10.4.2002. The Motorcycles were also ordered to be released by the Magistrate, Aizawl vide order dated 11.4.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order directing release of the motorcycles, the custom authority moved this court by filing Criminal Revision No. 1/2002. The Revision Application was allowed by order dated 3.12.2002 by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
3. According to the petitioners they are not foreign nationals and they have also not been declared to be so by the competent authority and thus they are entitled to hold property in India including the State of Mizoram. The case made out in the writ petition is that the petitioners ever since the seizure of the motorcycles on 8.4.2002 have been waiting for a logical conclusion to the cases registered against them. According to them they have not received any notice relating to the aforesaid proceedings and are in complete dark. They have asserted that they are entitled to get back the motorcycles and the respondents have no authority in law to keep the seized motorcycles in indefinite custody without bringing the proceedings to an end.
4. It is with the aforesaid narration of fact that the following prayers have been made in the writ petition by the petitioners.
"In the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the petition, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ/direction as prayed for shall not be passed and/or pass an order directing the respondents,
(i) for direction to the respondents to inform the petitioners as to the pendency of case, if any initiation of proceeding and the place of proceeding against the petitioner within a specified time ;
(ii) for a direction to the State of Mizoram to dispose of the Cri TR No. 663/2002 arising out of Aizawl PS Case No. 175/2002, pending in the Court of H. Vanlaltina, Magistrate 1st Class, Aizawl, Mizoram, within a fixed period;
(iii) to quash Custom Seizure Case No. 11/CL/EXP/CUST/AS-AIZ/2002 dated 8.4.2002 and No. 12/CL/EXP/CUST/AS-AIZ/2002 dated 8.4.2002 for violation of provision of Section124 of the Customs Act and for a direction to release the properties of the petitioners as seized on 8.4.2002 ;
(iv) for a direction to release the properties of the petitioners as seized on 8.4.2002 as provided under Section 124 of the Act.
and upon hearing the parties and on causes shown and on hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or be pleased to pass such further or other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
5. The respondents have filed their affidavit controverting the claim made by the petitioners. According to the revelation made in the affidavit, the seizure took place on 8.4.2002 during the vigil operation by the custom officials. The four motorcyclists were signalled to stop, but instead they drove faster and it was under that circumstances one of them was apprehended with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
