Delhi High Court Permits Petitioner to File Appeal Against Confiscation Order of Seized Gold Kada

The petitioner approached the High Court and relied on Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a way to dispute the custody of the silver-coated gold kada weighing 255 grams that the customs officials had confiscated at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 14 August 2022. He argued that the show-cause notice had not been served within the time limit prescribed by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. One of the arguments put forward by the petitioner was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (2024), which said that if no notice or valid extension is given, the seized goods must be released.

The Department countered the petition by claiming that the petitioner had voluntarily testified under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitting that the gold kada was not his and that he was merely transporting it for a Bangladeshi person in return for Rs.50,000/-The department also entered into evidence the Order-in-Original dated 28 June 2023 issued by the collector which stated that the gold had been confiscated completely under Section 111 of the Act and a penalty of Rs.31,632/- was imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA. It was mentioned that the petitioner had not shown up for the confiscation hearings.

Issue Raised: Whether the court had to rule whether the confiscation of the gold kada and the penalty could be imposed at all, considering that no show-cause notice had been given during the time allowed by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.

HC’s Decision: The Court remarked that the circumstances of the case were different from those in Jatin Ahuja. Here, the applicant under Section 108 made a clear confession stating that the thing did not belong to him and that he was paid to bring it to India. Besides, an Order-in-Original had already been issued directing complete confiscation and penalty. Looking at all these facts, the Court considered it wrong to use the writ jurisdiction.

However, as the Order-in-Original did not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner, the Court granted him liberty to file an appeal against the said order within two months. It was directed that if such an appeal is filed, it shall be adjudicated on the merits within four months and not dismissed on the ground of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, with all pending applications also disposed of.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below