Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court noted the consensus between the parties. Regarding the confiscation proceedings, the Court directed that the petitioner, if desirous, could appear before the competent Customs authorities to contest the notice dated November 17, 2025. The petitioner was directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on December 7, 2026, and upon filing a necessary reply, the adjudicating authority was to proceed in accordance with law. Concerning the pending application for interim custody under Section 110A of the Customs Act, the Court directed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and disclose their stand before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was then to decide the matter of interim custody in accordance with law. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the legality of the initial detention or the validity of the six-month extension, as the parties reached a consensus for the petitioner to participate in the ongoing proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, Saleem, sought the return of his vehicle, registration No. RJ-14-GJ-3577, which was intercepted by the Customs Division, Guwahati, on November 25, 2024. The vehicle was allegedly carrying 114 cartons of foreign-made cigarettes in a concealed cabin and was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that no notice was issued to the owner within the six-month period stipulated by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, thus rendering the detention of the vehicle unlawful under Section 124(a). The petitioner had also filed an application for interim custody under Section 110A. The Customs Department stated that the six-month period was extended on May 13, 2025, and the interim custody application was delayed due to a mismatch in the vehicle's registration address. A confiscation notice was issued on November 17, 2025, which the petitioner claimed not to have received.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of the vehicle by the Customs authorities was lawful, considering the petitioner's argument that no notice was issued to the owner within six months as required by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus the detention was impermissible under Section 124(a) of the Act. 2. Whether the adjudicating authority should be directed to decide the application for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the detention of the vehicle was illegal due to the non-issuance of notice within the stipulated six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that this non-compliance invalidated the subsequent detention under Section 124(a). The petitioner also sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their interim custody application. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent Customs Department argued that the six-month period for issuing notice was duly extended prior to its expiry on May 13, 2025. They also submitted that the delay in deciding the interim custody application was due to a mismatch in the vehicle's registration address. The department had no objection to the petitioner contesting the confiscation proceedings and participating in the interim custody proceedings.