In W.P.(C) 16818/2022-  Under Sec 110(1D) of Customs Act, notice of proceedings must be served to the person from whom the goods were seized, rules Delhi High Court
Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Justice Amit Mahajan [03-05-2023]

Read Order: Ganesh Sawant V. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, May 30, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)'s argument that serving notice of proceedings to the person from whom the goods were seized was not required under section 110(1D) of the Customs Act.

Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner had filed the present petition being aggrieved by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) concluding the proceedings under section 110(1D) of the Customs Act, without issuing any notice of the proceedings to the petitioner. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) submitted that section 110(1D) did not require any notice to be served and therefore, he could not be faulted for concluding the proceedings under section 110(1D).

The bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan noted that sub-section (1D) of section 110 of the Customs Act was introduced to replace the authority to whom an application for certifying inventory, taking photographs of seized goods, and drawing representative samples should be made. The proper officer, specifically for seized gold, was required to make the application before the Commissioner (Appeals) with jurisdiction instead of the Magistrate. However, the bench observed that despite the change in the authority, there were no corresponding amendments made to the procedure to be followed in such cases.

The bench held that the decision in the case of Ishwar Parasram Punjabi v. Union of India [LQ/DelHC/1989/532], applied equally to proceedings under section 110(1D) of the Customs Act, wherein it has been observed that, “In an exercise of this nature, the law would oblige adherence to principals of natural justice [i.e. notice and participation in the exercise] especially given the fact that there is no express exclusion in the Act.”

The bench concluded that although the petitioner was entitled to insist that the proceedings under section 110(1D) of the Customs Act be conducted de novo, no such orders were warranted in this case as the goods in question had already been sold.