No Writ Relief After Limitation Lapse: High Court Upholds Absolute Confiscation of Areca Nuts

M/s Bhagwan Corporation imported two consignments declared as “Boiled Betel Nuts”. On testing by CRCL and departmental inputs, the goods were reclassified as areca nuts. Since the declared value (Rs. 83-84 per kg) was significantly below the Minimum Import Price of Rs. 251 per kg prescribed under DGFT Notification No. 20/2015-20, the goods were treated as prohibited.

The Additional Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 112(a)(i). The importer’s appeal under Section 128 was filed with a delay of 156 days and was dismissed as time-barred.

Main Issue: Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 with an order of absolute confiscation and denial of redemption under Section 125 when the statutory appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

HC’s Decision: The Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 128 but failed to avail it within the maximum condonable period. The appeal was rightly rejected on limitation, and since that finding was not independently challenged, the Order-in-Original had attained finality.

The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be used to circumvent statutory remedies, particularly where delay and laches are evident.

The Court observed that Section 125(1) employs the term “may”, indicating that grant of redemption is discretionary and not a matter of right. The adjudicating authority had given detailed reasons for treating the goods as prohibited due to the violation of the Minimum Import Price condition. Once the goods were held prohibited, denial of redemption could not be termed illegal.

The Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below