The mandatory requirement of providing a show cause notice to the owner of seized goods within six months of the seizure under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the validity of service of such notice.

( 1 ) THE principal question in this petition is whether the respondents are justified in withholding the seized goods belonging to the petitioner and whether they are liable to return the same to the petitioner no. 1.

( 2 ) THE officers of the Central Excise and Customs intercepted, seized certain imported goods at ghaziabad. Petitioner no. 1 claimed through its Managing Director, petitioner no. 2, that the goods belonged to petitioner no. 1 and had been imported by it through proper invoice and import permit. The petitioner claimed that the seized goods which are components of watches have not yet been returned to the petitioner. It was further pleaded that in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act, it was mandatory for the respondents to have given a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 124 (a) of the Act within six months of the seizure of the goods, and since that was not done, they were liable to return the seized goods. The petitioners therefore claimed that the matter remained pending with the respondents and further proceeding before them was liable to be set aside and a direction be issued for the return of the seized goods to the petitioner no. 1.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondents, on the other hand, was that the goods were smuggled item and did not belong to petitioner no. 1 and had been rightly seized. Further that the notice under section 110 (2) had been duly given and the respondents were entitled to continue the proceedings against the petitioners and were not liable to return the seized goods.

( 4 ) TWO principal questions arise in this case : Firstly, whether the seizure was illegal, as the officers had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Act. Secondly, there was no notice as contemplated under Section 110 (2) of the Act. The latter question raises two subsidiary questions viz, what is the meaning to be given to the words notice in respect thereof is given under Section 110 (2) of the Act and secondly, whether the service of the notice on the alleged agent of a Director of a Company was a valid service of the said notice.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri H. S. Sharma, and the learned standing Counsel for the Union of India, Shri K. C. Sinha. If either of the two questions mentioned above is answered in the affirmative the order of seizure would be invalid and the consequence would be that the writ petition would succeed. We propose to deal with the second question first.

( 6 ) FIRST a few facts. The petitioner Company is a Private Limited Company with its registered office at 25-B, Pleasure Garden, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, and they have their factory for the manufacture of watches at Begum Bridge, Meerut. Petitioner no. 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner no. 1, hereinafter referred to as the Company. The Company had obtained a Central excise licence for the manufacture of watches, time pieces and clocks. The petitioner Company had imported against bills and invoices a number of packets containing components of watches under the import licence and they had taken those packets on payment of custom duty from the customs House, New Delhi on the 29th August, 1981. The packets containing the components of watches were being transported from New Delhi to the petitioners factory at Meerut. The vehicle which was transporting the goods was checked by the Central Excise Officers of the division headed by Respondent No. 3. They detained the goods with the vehicle. The goods were seized. A Panchnama was executed on 11-9-1981 by the officers of respondent no. 2, collector of Central Excise and Customs, Meerut.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the goods were seized on the 29th August, 1981 along with all import documents.

( 8 ) NO show cause notice, oral or written, in terms of Section 124 read with Section 110 (2) of the act was given either to the petitioner