Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Customs and Another - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.11754 Of 2022
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Mr. Shubhankar Jha and Mr. Ashish Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Adv.
The lack of provision in the Customs Act that entitled the Revenue to retain the goods pending the outcome of a Revision Petition, and the obligation to release the goods after the concerned party had paid the redemption fine and penalty as determined.
Headnote:
Customs Act - Release of Goods - Section 77, 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m), 111(o), 112(a), 112(b), 114AA, 125, 128/11 - The court directed the release of goods detained under the Customs Act, emphasizing that the Revenue had no justification to withhold the release after the concerned party had paid the redemption fine and penalty as determined. The court highlighted the lack of provision in the Customs Act that entitled the Revenue to retain the goods pending the outcome of a Revision Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained by the Custom Authorities in possession of two wrist watches valued at about Rs. 39,61,100, arrested on the allegation of smuggling, and released on bail. The goods were detained and seized, and an order was passed for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties. Despite depositing the penalties and redemption fine, the goods were not released, leading to the petitioner filing a petition before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no justification for the Revenue to withhold the release of the goods and directed their handover to the petitioner within two working days. It emphasized that the pendency of a Revision Petition did not entitle the Revenue to retain the goods after the concerned party had paid the redemption fine and penalty as determined.
Issues: Detention and seizure of goods, non-compliance with order-in-original, pendency of Revision Petition, justification for withholding release of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of provision in the Customs Act that entitled the Revenue to retain the goods pending the outcome of a Revision Petition, and the obligation to release the goods after the concerned party had paid the redemption fine and penalty as determined.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to handover the goods in question to the petitioner within two working days.
JUDGMENT :
(Vibhu Bakhru, J.) :-
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
(i) To issue a writ of mandamus order direction thereby directing the respondent to release the goods i.e. Hublot Big Bang watch marking 142651 and Bvlgari Serpenti watch for the purpose of re-export of same in terms of order in appeal no. CC (A) CUS/D-I/Airport/300-302/2022-2023 dated 28.6.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner claims that he was employed in the United Arab Emirates for many years and had arrived on a visit to New Delhi on 06.08.2021. The petitioner was detained by the Custom Authorities and it was found that he was in possession of two wrist watches valued at about Rs. 39,61,100/-. The petitioner was arrested on the allegation of smuggling and was released on bail.
3. The said goods (wrist watches) were detained and seized on 07.08.2021. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport by an order dated 28.12.2021. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
“ORDER
i. I deny the ‘Free Allowance’ to the Pax Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, on account of various omission and commission made by him and did not declare the seized goods at the Red Channel before the Customs Officer and violated the provisions of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962;
ii. I order confiscation of the above said watches i.e., One (01) Hublot Big Bang watch with Marking 1426251 and also having Marking 301.PX.130.RX & 1426251 on the Tag attached with the Watch alongwith One International Hublot Warranty Card having Marking “301.PX.130.RX & 1426251 H775”, Retailer-Luna Management Monaco on the backside of the Card and One (01) Bvlgari Serpenti Watch having Marking on backside of the Watch ‘SP 35 SPG & PO 23828’ alongwith One International Bvlgari Warranty Card having reference Code, 103149 & Serial Number PO 23828 mentioning location as “Celita Espana”, with store name “Chocron Joyeros”, Date of purchase 26.04.2021, collectively valued at Rs. 39,61,100/- (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lakh Sixty-One Thousand One Hundred only) recovered from the baggage of the Pax Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta and seized vide Panchnama dated 07.08.2021, under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962;
iii. I give an option to redeem the goods confiscated above, on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5,94,165/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Five only) under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and allowed the same for re-export to Dubai, UAE, only. The redemption is to be allowed after the completion of legal formalities in this regard and also fulfillment of any regulatory clearances/approvals required. The offer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax shall not dispute the identity and valuation of the seized goods. The offer of redemption shall cease after One Hundred Twenty Days’ from date of the receipt of this order;
iv. I also impose a Penalty of Rs. 5,94,165/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Five only) upon the Pax under Section 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962,
v. I impose a penalty of Rs. 7,92,220/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty only) on Mr. Pankaj Jain, Employer of the Pax Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta and Owner of the company M/s Prime Chatering FZ LLC, Ras-Al-Khamah, UAE under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for his various acts of omission and commission, as discussed, hereinabove.
Whereas this order, being appealable and the Pax OR Department has a right to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the subject order under Section 128/11 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the Pax or his Advocate or any Authorised Representative is hereby directed to file the request for release of the seized goods for the purpose of re-export only on receipt of this order or before 15 days from the dat
