The Gauhati High Court has directed the Customs adjudicating authority to decide a pending application for interim custody of a vehicle intercepted for allegedly carrying 114 cartons of foreign-made cigarettes in a concealed cabin. The Court also allowed the vehicle owner to contest the confiscation proceedings after he maintained that he had not received the notice initiating those proceedings.
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury did not order the vehicle’s immediate release or decide the six-month notice challenge on merits. It directed the competent authority to consider interim custody in accordance with law.
Buy Now: Indirect Tax Judgments E-Compilation – October 2026
The dispute concerned vehicle registration number RJ-14-GJ-3577. According to the facts recorded in the order, the Anti-Smuggling Unit of the Customs Division, Guwahati, intercepted the vehicle for allegedly transporting 114 cartons of foreign-made cigarettes in a concealed cabin.
The goods were seized on November 25, 2024, under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The vehicle owner subsequently approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Customs Department to return the vehicle.
The High Court did not determine whether the alleged smuggling had been established or whether the vehicle was liable to confiscation.
The writ petition was primarily founded on the contention that no notice had been issued to the vehicle owner within six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
On that basis, the petitioner challenged the Department’s continued custody of the vehicle, also referring to the notice requirement under Section 124(a).
The Customs Department, however, stated in its affidavit that the six-month period had been extended on May 13, 2025, before its expiry.
The order records the Department’s position but does not adjudicate the validity of the extension. The Court ultimately disposed of the petition through directions concerning participation in the confiscation proceedings and consideration of interim custody.
The petitioner had separately applied to the competent authority under Section 110A for interim custody of the vehicle.
Customs informed the Court that the application could not be decided because of a mismatch of address in the vehicle’s registration document.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the owner would satisfy the authority regarding the discrepancy. He accordingly sought a direction requiring the adjudicating authority to conclude the proceedings concerning interim custody.
The standing counsel for Customs expressed no objection to that request.
The Department also placed on record that a notice concerning confiscation proceedings had been issued on November 17, 2025.
The petitioner maintained that he had not received the notice and had learnt about the proceedings only when Customs filed its affidavit before the High Court.
In that background, his counsel requested permission to contest the confiscation proceedings. Customs did not object.
The Court did not make a final finding on whether the notice had been validly served. Instead, it provided an opportunity for the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority and submit his response through the prescribed procedure.
The High Court directed that, if the petitioner wished to contest the confiscation proceedings and the notice dated November 17, 2025, he could appear before the competent Customs authorities by following the prescribed legal procedure.
For that purpose, the Court specified December 7, 2026, as the date for appearance before the adjudicating authority. Upon filing the necessary reply, the authority was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Regarding the pending Section 110A application, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and explain his position. The adjudicating authority was then directed to decide the issue of interim custody of the vehicle in accordance with law.
The Court did not prescribe a separate fixed deadline for deciding the custody application or impose any particular release conditions.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
