Case Law Details
SYM Company Vs Principal Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In a recent legal development, SYM Company has approached the Delhi High Court seeking the unconditional release of goods seized under Bills of Entries. The court’s intervention in this matter is based on the contention that, as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, no notice regarding the seizure of goods was issued within six months. This article explores the details of the case, the legal provisions invoked, and the court’s directive to the Customs Department for the release of the seized goods.
Detailed Analysis: SYM Company, the petitioner, invoked Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, contending that no notice was issued within six months of the seizure of goods under Section 110(1) of the Act. Section 110(2) stipulates that if no notice is given within the specified period, the seized goods must be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized.
The court, taking cognizance of this provision, considered the petitioner’s plea and directed the Customs Department to unconditionally release the seized goods imported under Bills of Entries. The court’s decision was grounded in the clear language of Section 110(2), which provides for the automatic return of goods if no notice is served within the stipulated timeframe.
The respondents, representing the Customs Department, acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on Section 110(2) and expressed their willingness to release the goods without prejudicing their right to adjudicate the proceedings based on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The court accepted this assurance, and the respondents committed to releasing the goods within one week from the date of the court’s directive.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
