IBRAHIM Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J .--The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 9th September, 1981 issued to him by the Senior Preventive Officer (Respondent No. 3). The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition is that although the above notice purported to have been issued to the petitioner under section 168 of the Customs Act is dated 9-9-1981 but till today no further action has been taken by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 either to prosecute the petitioner under any specific provision of the Customs Act or to issue further notice for confiscation of the property under section 180 of the Customs Act. Mr. S. Inayatali; learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the case in which they have challenged that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the owner of the vessel. We are not concerned in this petition with the ownership of the vessel as according to the notice which is impugned in this petition the vessel was seized by the Customs Authorities under section 168 of the Customs Act. Subsection (2) of section 168 provides that where any goods are seized under subsection (1) and no show-cause notice in respect thereof is given under section 180 within two months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The proviso to this subsection also provides that the aforesaid period of two months may for reasons to be recorded in writing be extended by the Collector of Customs by a period not exceeding two months. It is therefore quite clear that the maximum period available to the respondent No. 2 to issue notice under section 180 of the Customs Act for purposes of imposing any penalty or confiscating any goods is four months. It is not disputed by Mr. Syed Inayatali the learned counsel for the respondents that till today no notice as required by subsection (2) of section 168 or under section 180 of the Customs Act has been issued to the petitioner. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel that the vessel at the time of seizure was found in possession of the petitioner. We are therefore of the view that the Customs Authorities were bound to restore the possession of the vessel to the person from whose possession it was seized. It is pointed out by Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the vessel has already been delivered to the petitioner by order of this Court dated 23-12-1981 upon furnishing a surety. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the notice dated 9-9-1981. The consequence of the above order will be that the vessel shall to deemed to have been restored to the possession of the petitioner with the result that the surety furnished by the petitioner at the time of taking delivery of the vessel stands discharged.

2. It is however, clarified that the aforesaid declaration will not in any way debar the respondents to initiate any legal proceedings available to them under p the provisions of Customs Act against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.

3. M.Y.H./I-79/K.

4. Petition allowed.