- (1.) This Rule is directed against an order in revision dated 29th August, 1971 passed by the Central Government under Section 131 of the Customs Act. The petitioner is a businessman dealing in various goods including comphor and cloves.
(2.) On 15th of January, 1956 the officers of Customs and Central Excise Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) seized eight bags of cloves from one Aminchand of Pithapuran (Andhra Pradesh). The said cloves were purchased by the petitioner from one Jaichand Lal Sethia of 9, Dacres Lane, Calcutta who despatched the said goods to the petitioner by railway and the same was held by Aminchand as an agent of the petitioner. On 28th of February, 1965 the Inspector of the Customs and Central Excise, Sompeta (Andhra Pradesh) seized from the house of one Pydisathi Vignosham of Kanchili (Andhra Pradesh) eight bags containing Lion Brand comphor weighing 451.05 kgs. The petitioner purchased the said indigeneous Lion Brand comphor from one Somchand Sanghvi of 3, Amratolla Street, Calcutta who booked the said goods to the petitioner and the same was kept by the petitioner in the house of his relative, the said Pydisathi Vignesham. On the 12th of November, 1965 the Superintendent of Customs issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the comphor would not be confiscated rendering the petitioner liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 . A similar notice of show cause was issued on the 23rd of December, 1965 with respect to the cloves. On the 6th of April, 1966 the petitioner replied to the said show cause notices. On 23rd December, 1966 both the goods were confiscated by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a personal penalty of Rs. 1000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. On the 24th of May, 1971 the petitioner preferred two appeals against those orders of confiscation and imposition of penalty. By an order dated 31st May, 1971 the Member of Central Board of Excise and Customs affirmed the order of confiscation but set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the petitioner. On the 6th August, 1971 the petitioner preferred a revisional application under Section 131 of the Customs Act. By an order dated 29th August, 1972 the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance rejected the petitioner's said application. The petitioner being aggrieved moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rules. An interim order was also granted to this effect that in the event the Rule succeeds ultimately, the respondents should be bound to refund the sale proceeds of the goods without recourse to a separate proceedings.
(3.) Mr. Datta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised only one point. It is contended that in the instant case no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was given within six months of the seizure of the goods. The said period of six months was also not extended under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act. So, after the expiry of the said six months, the retention of the seized goods in the custody of the Customs was illegal and without jurisdiction as the same was in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act. According to Mr. Datta, such goods which were illegally detained, could not be confiscated under Section 111 (b) of the Act, in an adjudication proceeding, upon a notice under Section 124 of the Act. The right to restoration of the seized goods is a civil right which accrues to the owner of the goods on the expiry of the six months, if within that period no notice under Section 124 is issued or the said period is not extended after giving the owner a reasonable opportunity of being heard under the proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Act. The Customs Authority could not confiscate the said goods illegally which were liable to be returned under Section 110(2) of the Act and thus would defeat the vested civil right of the petitioner.;