Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19612
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, Suddala Chalapathi Rao, JJ
Sadaf Khan – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No.26986 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Vedula Srinivas, Sri S.J.A.Nadeem
For the Respondents: Sri A.Nehru, Sri Dominic Fernandes
Compounding of offences under Customs Act requires full disclosure; inconsistencies can lead to rejection of applications.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 137 - Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 - Compounding of offences - Petitioner, having been intercepted for smuggling gold bars and mobile phones, sought to compound the offences but was rejected due to failure to fully disclose facts. The applicant’s inconsistency in statements raised serious doubts on her credibility. (Paras 10, 11, 22, 23)
(B) Legal principles regarding full disclosure of circumstances required for compounding of offences as set forth in previous judgments were reiterated, emphasizing the necessity for accuracy and truth in compounding applications. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was intercepted at the airport with contraband goods and later sought to compound her offences after she paid the imposed penalties; however, claims of ignorance were contradicted by her changing statements throughout the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that dismissing the application for compounding was justified due to the applicant’s failure to make a full and truthful disclosure of facts while raising inconsistencies damaging her credibility.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner met the legal standards of truthfulness and full disclosure required for the compounding of offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s inconsistent statements undermined her position and justified the respondents’ refusal to grant compounding, aligning with established legal standards.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's interception at the airport for smuggling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. conditions for compounding outlined. (Para 10 , 11 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. contradictory statements undermine credibility. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed. (Para 24) |
ORDER
:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)
The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the order of the 2nd respondent in C.No.GCCO/LGL/COMP/ 06/2023-Legal, dt.04.12.2024 as arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal, and consequently allow the application of the petitioner, dt.25.10.2016, for compounding of the offences in terms of Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 4(3) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’).
2. The petitioner was employed with Emirates Airlines, as Cabin Attendant and was frequently visiting India on official duty. While so, on 09.04.2014 upon her arrival from Dubai by Flight No.EK-526 at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, the Customs (Air Intelligence Unit) Officers intercepted her at the Exit Gate of the arrival hall of the Airport. On inspection of her handbag, after she passed through the Customs Green Channel, the authorities found 13 gold bars of 1 kg each and 5 mobile phones and on enquiry, the petitioner denied the knowledge of the said items and stated that one Mr.Shujat Ali Mohammed, who was also travelling in the same flight, kept few packets in her hand bag at Dubai making her to believe that the said packets contained mobile phones and he would collect them after reaching Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner further contended that her statement was recorded on the same day and the authorities registered a case alleging that the petitioner, in connivance with one Mr.Shujat Ali Mohammed, has attempted to smuggle 13 gold bars worth of Rs.3,75,76,175/- along with five HTC Mobile Phones valued at Rs.1,25,000/- by evading custom duties in contravention of Sections 11, 77 & 79 of the Act, the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 and Sections 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Thereafter, the customs authorities arrested her and produced before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day i.e., on 09.04.2014 and she was remanded to judicial custody. While so, Mr.Shujat Ali Mohammed, escaped undetected from the customs area and left for Dubai on the same day, and subsequently he was brought back to India. The case is pending adjudication before the competent Court of law.
4. The petitioner further contends that subsequently, the authorities issued a show-cause notice, dt.07.10.2014, to the petitioner proposing confiscation of seized goods under Sections 111(1) and 111(d) of the Act and imposition of penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Act. Further, the Adjudicating Officer vide Order-in-Original, dt.29.07.2016 vide No.78/2016- Adjn.Cus(ADC), ordered confiscation of 13 Gold Bars weighing 1 Kg. each, valued at Rs.3,75,76,175/- and also (05) HTC Mobile Phones valued at Rs.1,25,000/-, imposing redemption fine of Rs.37,50,000/- on the petitioner and penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- each on the petitioner and Mr.Shujat Ali Mohammed, under Sections 114AA and 112(a)(i) of the Act, respectively.
5. It is further contended by the petitioner that she had paid customs duty, penalty along with redemption fine imposed and subsequently, gold was released to the petitioner. Thereafter, prosecution was launched and after investigation, charge sheet was laid in CC.No.25/2019, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Economic Offences, Hyderabad, against both the petitioner and Mr.Shujat Ali Mohammed, and the said case is pending adjudication.
6. The petitioner further contended that pending adjudication of the CC., she had filed an application, dt.25.10.2016, for compounding of offences in CC.No.25/2019 before the 1st Respondent i.e., the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, under Section 137 of the Act r/w
