Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
ANAS – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AIR CUSTOMS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 38903/2015
Customs - Writ Petition - Customs Act Section 128, Section 128A - The court reaffirmed adherence to statutory appeal procedures under the Customs Act, noting the lack of timely appeal and confirming the finality of the confiscation order due to non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order regarding the seizure of gold at the airport, claiming lack of notice and authority. He admitted to acting as a courier when questioned, which influenced the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not file a timely appeal against the confiscation order as mandated by the Customs Act, thereby rendering the order final. No grounds for judicial intervention were present.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's failure to file an appeal as prescribed under the Customs Act impacts the court's jurisdiction to review the confiscation order.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory provisions under the Customs Act necessitate an appeal within a specified timeframe, failure of which precludes judicial review. The court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural requirements.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders for quashing Ext.P1.
2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, while returning to India, was intercepted by the 3rd respondent at Karippur Airport. Gold Buckle was seized from him and confiscated as per Ext.P1 proceedings. He had sent Ext.P2 letter to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) stating that the order was passed without issuing notice and without hearing him and that, the Joint Commissioner had no authority to seize the goods. According to him, he brought the gold for personal use and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner admitted the facts, while an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Commissioner. He had given a statement on 01.06.2014 where he had virtually admitted the fact that he was only a courier and that, he was offered an amount of ₹25,000/- and ticket for successfully delivering the goods. The gold was in the form of Buckle of the belt weighing 466 grams having a market value of ₹12,74,510/-.
4. That apart, Ext.P2 is not in the format of a regular appeal.
It is stated that the appeal, if any, against Ext.P1 order had to be filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the procedure for filing appeal is stated under Section 128 A. The appeal ought to have been filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order and delay can be condoned only for further 30 days period. It is stated that Ext.P1 order was passed on 03.06.2014 and letter Ext.P2 has been issued only on 23.11.2015.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I don't think that anything survives to be considered in this writ petition. The petitioner has virtually admitted that he was a courier and accordingly confiscation proceedings had been taken in terms of Ext.P1. Admittedly, Ext.P1 was appealable and no appeal is filed as contemplated under the statutory provisions and within the time specified. Therefore, Ext.P1 has become final. The petitioner cannot request this Court to interfere with Ext.P1 without approaching the statutory authority by filing appeal.
This writ petition is, hence, dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
