Timely issuance of show cause notice is mandatory under the Customs Act, and non-compliance results in the automatic return of the seized goods.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The petitioner from whose possession a gold bangle was seized under the CUSTOMS ACT , while travelling from Imphal to Delhi, is before this Court with a prayer for directions to issue to release/return the gold bangle to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 110 (2) read with Section 124 of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962.

2. Mr. D.S. Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the seizure of the gold bangle on 04.04.2023, and after registration of the case, a show cause notice dated 03.10.2023, was issued and was received by the petitioner on 10.10.2023, which was after a period of 6(six) months, from the date of the seizure. The learned counsel has submitted that as per Section 110 (2) of the CUSTOMS ACT , where any goods are seized under sub-section (1), and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 , within 6(six) months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they are seized. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 124 , whereby reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be allowed to the concerned persons. He then contends that, as the show cause notice was received by the petitioner only on 10.10.2023, after a period of 6(six) months, on being dispatched by the respondents via speed post on 05.10.2023, which was after the period of 6(six) months, the respondents therefore, in view of the violation of Section 110 (2) and 124 of the CUSTOMS ACT , are liable to return the gold bangle to the petitioner.

3. In support of his case, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Purushottam Jajodia vs. Dir. of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi , 2014 (307) E.L.T. 837 (Del.) wherein he submits, it has been held that goods which had been seized under Section 110 (1) of the Act, cannot be retained beyond the stipulated period of 6(six) months or the extended period of further 6(six) months, if no notice in respect of the goods is given under Section 124 (a) of the said Act, within the said period. He further submits that this judgment has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated 11.05.2015, passed in Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2015 and 3123 of 2015 (Dir. of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi vs. Purushottam Jajodia)

4. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. S. Rumthao, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 03.10.2023, as per the proviso to Section 124 of the CUSTOMS ACT , but however, due to the imposition of strict curfew by local Civil Society Organizations (CSO’s) and District Magistrates within Imphal and the adjoining areas arising out of the on-going communal conflict, which erupted since 03.05.2022, the show cause notice could not be sent to the noticee by post on 03.10.2023, and the same was sent by speed post only on 05.10.2023, when the curfew was relaxed by the administration. He has further submitted that, in the cases of Asstt. Collector of Customs vs. Charan Das Malhotra , (1971) 1 SCC 697 and Harbans Lal vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs , (1993) 3 SCC 656 , it has been held that the period laid down in Section 110 (2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice, and that Section 124 the proceeding survives even though, the seized goods might have to be returned or stand returned, in terms of Section 110 of the Act, after the expiry of the permissible period of seizure. He lastly submits that, the respondents being prevented by suffi