While holding that the defective detention receipt, which does not contain an email address and mobile number, renders such detention invalid, the Delhi High Court declares the seizure of the gold bar as illegal, and directed for release of the gold, subject to payment of customs duty, redemption fine and warehousing charges.
Though the Court ruled that the gold bar is liable to be released, considering it is not a personal effect, it directed the petitioner to personally appear before the Customs Authorities along with a passport and travel documents.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that the extension of the six months under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, is not tenable as it was issued after the expiry of the initial period and communication to the petitioner is uncertain.
The Bench emphasised that the mere assumption that the gold bar was not a personal effect and appeared to be smuggled is not enough, referring to the directions issued by the Coordinate Benches in previous cases and SOP issued by the CBIC.
Therefore, holding that the detention receipt is defective for not containing the email address and mobile number, which renders the detention invalid, the Bench directed that the designated nodal officer shall assist the petitioner in compliance with the directions.
Briefly, the petitioner had sought the release of a gold bar weighing 117 grams detained by the Customs Authorities when he travelled from Saudi Arabia to Delhi. He claimed that though a detention receipt was issued, no SCN was served within the six months prescribed u/s 110 of the Customs Act.
Appearances:
Advocates S Vijay Kanth and Utkarsh Tripathi, for the Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Advocate Avijeet Dixit, for Respondent/ Revenue
