Rights Under Art. 300A Can't Bypass Customs Proceedings For Release Of Seized Goods: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on 3 September held that reliance on Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects a person's property rights, cannot by itself entitle a person to unconditional release of property when statutory proceedings under the Customs law are underway.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Nahid Zakiya through SPA Mohammad Uzair seeking the return of a 58-gram gold chain detained by Customs authorities at Delhi airport. It held:
“Without the relevant factual issues being examined in accordance with law, this Court cannot grant a conclusive declaration in favour of the Petitioner that the article was necessarily entitled to unconditional duty-free clearance as a bona fide personal effect,”
The petitioner claimed that the Customs authorities had failed to issue a show-cause notice within the period contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes the time limit for issuing a notice after seizure of goods. He also claimed that the chain was her old and used personal jewellery and therefore constituted a bona fide personal effect.
Further, he contended that continued retention of the chain without completion of the proceedings violated her rights, including the constitutional protection under Article 300A, which protects a person from being deprived of property except in accordance with law.
Rejecting the reliance on Article 300A, the Court observed that property rights are undoubtedly protected in accordance with law. However, where competent statutory authorities have initiated action under the Customs law, the Court cannot, in the absence of a clear and undisputed factual foundation, direct unconditional release by bypassing the statutory process required to determine the relevant issues.
The Bench further noted that the petitioner's claim that the chain was an old and used personal effect raised factual questions that required examination.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to grant unconditional release of the gold chain and dismissed the petition.
For Petitioner: Ms. Richa Kumari, Mr. Pawan and Mr. Nagendra Yadav, Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC along with Mr. Ashish Bansal and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs.