The disposal of seized property without notice and due process violates constitutional rights, rendering such actions illegal and unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

The judgment has been divided into the following parts:

A. Preface:-

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an important issue as to whether the action of the respondents to sell/dispose of the gold jewellery of the ownership of the petitioners, as seized from them, without notice to the petitioners, and before an order of confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Customs Act’) can be said to be legal and valid.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned action of the respondents of seizure of petitioners’ gold jewellery and its disposal was patently illegal being in breach of the provisions of not only the Customs Act, but the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. The prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted which read thus:-

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the Respondents themselves, its officers, subordinates, servants, and agents to forthwith provide the records of seized gold jewellery and return gold equal to 1028 grams of gold of which was disposed by the Respondents to enable the Petitioners to re-export the same in terms of the order dated 19.09.2022, passed by the Revisionary Authority, Government of India.

(b) in the alternative to the Prayer Clause (a) above, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents themselves, its officers, subordinates, servants, and agents to forthwith pay the amount equivalent to the value of the seized/confiscated 1028 grams of Gold Jewellery as per the current market value.

(c) pending the hearing of the above Petition, this Hon’ble Court, by an interim order be pleased to direct the Respondents, to forthwith deposit an amount equivalent to the current market value of the seized 1028 grams of gold jewelry, with liberty to the Petitioners to withdraw the same on such terms and conditions as may deem fit to this Hon’ble Court.

(d) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above;

(e) for costs of this Petition; and

(f) for such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

B. Facts:-

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are Iranian nationals. On 14 January 2018, they arrived at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai by the Oman Air Flight. The petitioners were wearing gold ornaments (bangles) having net weight of 1028 grams. They were intercepted by the Customs officials at Mumbai Airport and the gold bangles (for short ‘the gold jewellery’) worn by them, were seized by the Customs officials.

5. It appears that at the departmental level and which was not to the knowledge of the petitioners that the respondents initiated an action for disposal of the seized gold jewellery for which on 4 April 2018 a notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, C.S.I. Airport, inter alia recording that the officers of the Commissionerate had seized assorted gold jewellery totally weighing 1028 grams valued at Rs.26,63,366/- from the petitioners who were holding Iranian passport, on their arrival from Muscat. It was recorded that the jewellery was seized under the panchanama in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled into India and hence, liable for confiscation under