High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 11 PAT CK 0018

Union of India vs Jhantu Das

Patna High Court · Decided on 6 November 2012 · Citation: (2013) 1 PLJR 254

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Chandra Verma, J · J.N. Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
LPA No. 928 of 2011 in CWJC No. of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 313 words

Prakash Chandra Verma, J.—This letters patent appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2011 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3683 of 2011 quashing the seizure order passed u/s 110 of the Customs Act on the ground that the reasonable belief was not there and hence the seizure done was not valid. In this letters patent appeal the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.6.2011 stayed the operation of the impugned order of the learned single Judge and further vide order dated 30.6.2011 directed the Department to complete the confiscation proceeding, if initiated. Now through a supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant today the final order of confiscation proceeding has been brought on record. Thus, the confiscation is complete. Since, the confiscation order has been passed and goods seized have been confiscated, the order of seizure stands merged into the final order of confiscation. Thus, there is no seizure order in existence and after the stay order granted by this Court to the order of learned single Judge, final confiscation order has come. Now it is open for the respondent to avail the remedy available to him against the confiscation order.

2.

It is needless to say that the confiscated goods shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If the respondent moves an application for release of the goods, the said application shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules by the authorities competent to do so within six weeks and the appeal of the respondent shall be decided on merits. We make it clear that the observations and findings of the learned single Judge made in the impugned order dated 19.5.2011 passed in CWJC No. 3683 of 2011 shall not prejudice the case of any party in any future proceeding connected with the matter.