IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9215 of 2025 ==========================================================

PATEL ASIFMAHANMMED USMANGANI ABHMED YUSUF S/O PATEL USMANGANI ABHMED YUSUF Versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SHUBHAM JHAJHARIA(10231) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PARAM V SHAH(9473) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2026, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Shah has submitted that the amount of Rs.9,22,260/- is deposited before the Registry of this Court by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Paldi Division, Ahmedabad. He has tendered an additional affidavit-in-reply dated 05.02.2026.

The same is ordered to be taken on record.

2. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we have found serious irregularity/illegality in disposing of the seized gold of the petitioner. The gold of 200 grams quantity belonging to the petitioner was seized on 13.10.2021. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 26.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner. Ultimately, the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2022 was passed by the competent authority ordering confiscation of the seized gold.

3. Interestingly, the order was passed on 30.11.2022 and one day prior to that i.e. on 29.11.2022, the gold was sent for disposal to the Bombay Mint, Government of India. As per the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, disposal of the gold was undertaken in view of the provision of Clause 11.4.3 of Disposal Manual - 2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

4. It is the case of the petitioner and as recorded in the order dated 30.01.2026 that without informing the petitioner or issuing any notice, the gold was disposed of by the respondents. Interestingly, the respondent No.2 viz. Chandraprakash Verma, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Sardar vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, Hansol, Ahmedabad filed an affidavit dated 03.09.2025, while referring to the provision of section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 in paragraph No.9, a categorical statement was made that under the said provisions, no notice is required to be sent in case of “confiscated goods”. After making such assertive statement in the affidavit, in another affidavit dated 05.02.2026, averment is made that in fact, the petitioner was informed on 18.01.2022 for disposal of the seized gold under provision of section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 however, we do not find that such intimation has been received by the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may. It is not in dispute that the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2022 ordering confiscation of the gold was subsequently set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.01.2024 and, therefore, the action of seizure or action confiscation of the gold remained sustained.

6. The provision of section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962, prescribes the procedure of seizure of goods and procedure for sale of goods and application of sale proceeds wherein it is stipulated that the goods which are not confiscated goods, are to be sold after notice to the owner or public auction or by tender or with consent of the owner in any other manner. Thus, the status of the gold, which was ordered to be confiscated, was no more, maintained as such after the order passed by the appellate authority.

7. Despite waiting for the final order of the appellant authority, the respondent disposed of the gold by sending the same to the Mint on 29.11.2022 i.e. one day prior to passing of the Order-in-Original. This is the first illegality, which has been committed by the respondent authorities.

8. The second illegality as we had already recorded in the order