Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Vikram Jain – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Customs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure and return of seized currencies under customs act (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. arguments about the applicability of sections 110(2) and 110(3) (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 12 , 19) |
| 3. distinct procedures for sections 110(2) and 110(3) (Para 13 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. legal implications of non-compliance with seizure protocols (Para 15 , 16 , 22) |
| 5. court order to quash seizure and return currencies (Para 26) |
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 C
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 t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of notice and participation in the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act, based on the principles of natural justice....
Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate issues under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, making actions of confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act legally untenable.
A writ petition challenging seizure under the Customs Act may be considered non-maintainable if a related and previously adjudicated matter on jurisdictional grounds remains unresolved.
The power of seizure under Section 67 of the Act is limited to goods liable for confiscation and is not for the recovery of tax but to ensure compliance and aid proceedings against tax evasion.
Under the Customs Act, 1962, while the burden of proof regarding the licit nature of seized gold rests on the possessor under S.123, the confiscation of Indian currency as alleged 'sale proceeds' und....
Timely issuance of show cause notice is mandatory under the Customs Act, and non-compliance results in the automatic return of the seized goods.
The disposal of seized property without notice and due process violates constitutional rights, rendering such actions illegal and unconstitutional.
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
