Seizure of goods under the Customs Act, 1962 necessitates strict compliance with procedural requirements, including timely issuance of show cause notices; failure results in the mandatory return of the goods.

ORDER, J.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

The case on hand makes this Court the need to elucidate the distinction between Section 110 (2) and Section 110 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. In the instant case, Indian Currencies have been seized from the petitioner. The petitioner seeks for return of those Indian Currencies. The petitioner pleads innocence of any customs violations as seen from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and therefore, according to the petitioner, seizure of the Indian Currencies from him is arbitrary and illegal. The seizure has been effected by the respondent (Customs Department) by exercising powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

3. The petitioner claims that since Currencies have been seized, Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be strictly complied with by the respondent. According to the petitioner, since show cause notice has not been issued by the respondent within a period of six months as stipulated under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, or the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Commissioner of Customs has not extended the period for issuance of show cause notice by another period of six months as per the provisions of Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the seized Currencies will have to be returned to the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent before this Court stating that the seizure has been effected by the Customs Department by exercising powers under Section 110 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

5. According to them, since the Currencies were seized from the premises of one Mittalal, Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not get attracted as the seizure of Currencies will fall within the definition of ‘things’ as provided under Section 110 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, according to the respondent, no show cause notice, as contemplated under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be given to either Mittalal or to the petitioner. The respondent has also contended that one of the appraisers of the Customs Department had collected bribe amounts from various exporters and has issued fabricated documents to enable the exporters to illegally export their goods.

6. According to the respondent, Mittalal was one of the agents who had colluded with an appraiser of the Customs Department, who had collected bribe for the purpose of illegally aiding the exporters in exporting the goods.

7. The following are the undisputed facts:

a) No show cause notice was issued to Mittalal and to the petitioner after the seizure of Currencies, which is the subject matter of this writ petition; b) No criminal complaint has been lodged by the respondent (Customs Department) against Mittalal or the petitioner till date;

c) The contention of the respondent before this Court is that criminal law was set in motion as against the appraiser, who had collected bribe to illegally aid the exporters;

d) It is an admitted fact that no criminal complaint was lodged by the Customs Department against the petitioner or Mittalal for any alleged offence.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities in support of his contentions:

a) A Division Bench Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of AM Overseas Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2005 SCC Online Guj 195;

b) A Division Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Salman Khan Vs. Union of India reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6739

and would submit that s