A petitioner can retrieve confiscated goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee while appeals regarding confiscation are pending.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a person working abroad, submitted this writ petition. Ext.P10 is a demand made by the 2^nd respondent requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act , 1962.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

On 02.02.2024, while the petitioner was coming to India from Dubai, he was intercepted by the Customs Authorities at the Cochin International Airport. During the said process, four numbers of gold coins of 24 carat purity weighing 350 gms, were found in possession of the petitioner. Based on the same, confiscation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act and it ultimately culminated in Ext.P6 Order-in-Original, by which, the gold was ordered to be confiscated. However, the petitioner was given and option to redeem the said gold, on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and on making the payment of duty at the rates and other dues. The petitioner was also imposed with a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the . According to the petitioner, the petitioner paid the said amount and despite the same, Ext.P10 demand notice has been issued. It was in the circumstances, this writ petition was submitted.

3. A statement has been submitted by the respondents in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In the said statement, it is averred that, subsequent to the issuance of the demand notice, the petitioner paid the entire amount payable as per Ext.P6 order. However, it is also averred that, the respondents have submitted an appeal against Ext.P6 order, which now pending consideration.

4. I have heard Sri.Fahad Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.Girishkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had complied with order and deposited the entire amount, the petitioner is entitled to get back the gold ornaments, which are ordered to be confiscated as per Ext.P6.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel would point out that, now the matter is pending in appeal before the appellate authority, and in the said appeal, they are seeking absolute confiscation of the gold. As directed by this Court, a copy of the appeal memorandum was also produced as Annexure R2(b) along with a memo.

7. After considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that, merely because of the reason that, the respondents have submitted an appeal against Ext.P6 order, the gold need not be retained. However, since the respondents are seeking absolute confiscation of the gold, in order to preserve the rights of the parties, the petitioner has to furnish proper security for the value of the gold, to ensure that, in case the appeal filed by the Department is allowed, they are in a position to recover the amount.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the competent authority under the respondents to release the gold covered by Ext.P6 to the petitioner, upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the value of the court as per the market rate, to the satisfaction of the competent authority. Upon furnishing such a bank guarantee, the same shall be released within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-