27 August 2024 Custom Duty >> Tax Laws  

A foreign national from Moscow, Russia, initiated a writ petition in the matter of Elena Shvedova v/s Union Of India & Others seeking the return of five gold bars weighing 1075 grams, which had been seized by Indian Customs. The petitioner argued that no proper Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued, thereby claiming entitlement to the unconditional return of her gold.

Factual Background:

The petitioner purchased the gold bars from her bank in Russia with the intention of crafting jewelry and returning to her home country. Upon her arrival in India, she was intercepted by Customs officers near the green channel. The officers seized her gold and provided her with a Detention Receipt, which she was compelled to sign. After returning to Russia, she communicated her grievances to the Commissioner of Customs in two separate letters, requesting the gold's return and expressing her distress over the ordeal.

Legal Framework and Arguments:

Under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, any goods seized must be returned if a SCN is not issued within six months. The petitioner contended that no SCN had been served, while the Revenue Department asserted that a SCN was sent to her via email on July 4, 2023.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the mode of service for the SCN was invalid. They claimed the SCN was sent via speed post without a complete address, which resulted in its return. Furthermore, the petitioner argued she did not receive the email purportedly sent by the Customs department, challenging the validity of the service.

Counterarguments from the Revenue Department:

In response, the Standing Counsel for the Revenue stated that the SCN had indeed been sent via email and that the absence of a bounced-back notification indicated successful service. The argument focused on the presumption of due service in cases where electronic communication was utilized.

Legal Provisions Involved:

The case hinged on the interpretation of various sections of the Customs Act. Section 124 mandates that a SCN must inform the goods' owner of the grounds for confiscation and allow an opportunity for representation. Section 153 outlines permissible modes for serving such notices, including email.

Court’s Analysis:

The court reviewed the service attempts of the SCN, which included posting it on the notice board of the IGI Airport, an action deemed insufficient given the petitioner’s status as a foreign national. The SCN sent to the Ministry of Law & Justice was returned for not having a correct address. Ultimately, the SCN sent to the petitioner’s email address—provided by her in a prior statement—was deemed valid despite being sent from a non-governmental email service.

Additionally, the petitioner’s attempt to prove non-receipt of the email was undermined by discrepancies in the evidence presented, which did not convincingly establish her claim.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that the SCN was duly served within the six-month period following the seizure. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the gold bars at that time. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, reinforcing the procedural correctness of the Customs department’s actions in this case.

  Customs Act, 1962