Who is the proper officer under Customs Act?

Customs Act, 1962 and it reads as under:- “ proper officer”, in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of Customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Principal Commissioner of Customsor Commissioner of Customs .

What is Section 110 of the Customs Act?

(1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods :Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with ...

Who is the boss of customs?

The Comptroller-General of Customs is Bashir Adewale Adeniyi.

What is Rule 17 of customs Act?

- (1) After an importer has entered any imported goods under section 46 or an exporter has entered any export goods under section 50 the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, or such part thereof as may be necessary may, without undue delay, be examined and tested by the proper officer.

What is the rule 5 of customs Act?

- (1) The importer who intends to avail the benefit of an exemption notification shall provide information - (a) in duplicate, to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or, as the case may be, Assistant Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the premises where the imported goods shall be put to use for ...

What is Section 37 of the customs Act?

Power to board conveyances . - The proper officer may, at any time, board any conveyance carrying imported goods or export goods and may remain on such conveyance for such period as he considers necessary.

Who is the proper officer under Section 149 of customs Act?

(ii) The Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise or Appraiser has now been assigned the function under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the proper officer (before grant of order for clearance of goods under section 47 or section 51) of the Customs Act.

Who are the officers of customs and their powers?

“(1) Any gazetted officer of customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making in connection with the smuggling of any goods.”

Who is the head of the Department of customs?

Ms Louise HO Pui-shan , CDSM, CMSM, Commissioner of Customs and Excise.

What is a customs officer?

A customs officer is a person who works for the official organization responsible for collecting taxes on goods coming into a country and preventing illegal goods from being brought in .

Leyla Mahmoodi Through Ca Sandip Kadam vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs (2024)

Bombay High Court

Leyla Mahmoodi Through Ca Sandip Kadam vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 21 December, 2023

Author: G. S. Kulkarni

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

2023:BHC-OS:15115-DB 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 467 OF 2023 1. Leyla Mohmoodi, through Constituted Attorney Sandip D. Kadam. 2. Mojtaba Ebrahim Gholami through Constituted Attorney Sandip D. Kadam ...Petitioners Versus 1. The Additional Commissioner of Customs 2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 3. The Principal Commissioner of Customs 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs 5. The Union of India. ...Respondents __________ Mr. Anil Balani a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Prakash Shringrani, Ms. Priyasha Pawar, Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Ms. Revati Nansi, i/b PDS Legal, for Petitioner. Mr. Devang Vyas, ASG a/w Ms. Neeta Masurkar and Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent. Ms. Nithee Punde a/w Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar for R. No. 2. __________ CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. Reserved on :DECEMBER 13, 2023. Pronounced on :DECEMBER 21, 2023 Page 1 of 46 ------------------------- ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtJudgment: (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)The judgment has been divided into the following parts: Contents Paragraphs Nos. A Preface 1 to 3 B Facts 4 to 16 C Reply Affidavits 17 to 21 D Submissions on behalf of the petitioners 22 to 25 E Submissions on behalf of the respondents 26 F Analysis and Conclusion. 27 to 59A. Preface:-1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises animportant issue as to whether the action of the respondents to sell / dispose ofthe gold jewellery of the ownership of the petitioners, as seized from them,without notice to the petitioners, and before an order of confiscation underSection 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Customs Act') can be saidto be legal and valid.2. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned action of therespondents of seizure of petitioners' gold jewellery and its disposal was patentlyillegal being in breach of the provisions of not only the Customs Act, but therights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 300A read with Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India.3. The prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted which readthus:- Page 2 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt (a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the Respondents themselves, its officers, subordinates, servants, and agents to forthwith provide the records of seized gold jewellery and return gold equal to 1028 grams of gold of which was disposed by the Respondents to enable the Petitioners to re-export the same in terms of the order dated 19.09.2022, passed by the Revisionary Authority, Government of India. (b) in the alternative to the Prayer Clause (a) above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents themselves, its officers, subordinates, servants, and agents to forthwith pay the amount equivalent to the value of the seized/confiscated 1028 grams of Gold Jewellery as per the current market value. (c) pending the hearing of the above Petition, this Hon'ble Court, by an interim order be pleased to direct the Respondents, to forthwith deposit an amount equivalent to the current market value of the seized 1028 grams of gold jewelry, with liberty to the Petitioners to withdraw the same on such terms and conditions as may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court. (d) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above; (e) for costs of this Petition; and (f) for such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circ*mstances of the case."B. Facts:-4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are Iranian nationals. On 14January 2018, they arrived at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj InternationalAirport , Mumbai by the Oman Air Flight. The petitioners were wearing goldornaments (bangles) having net weight of 1028 grams. They were intercepted Page 3 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtby the Customs officials at Mumbai Airport and the gold bangles (for short 'thegold jewellery') worn by them, were seized by the Customs officials.5. It appears that at the departmental level and which was not to theknowledge of the petitioners that the respondents initiated an action for disposalof the seized gold jewellery for which on 4 April 2018 a notice was issued by theAssistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, C.S.I. Airport, interalia recording that the officers of the Commissionerate had seized assorted goldjewellery totally weighing 1028 grams valued at Rs.26,63,366/- from thepetitioners who were holding Iranian passport, on their arrival from Muscat. Itwas recorded that the jewellery was seized under the panchanama in thereasonable belief that it was smuggled into India and hence, liable forconfiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act,1962. Such notice wasbeing issued without prejudice to any person(s) to bring on record the objection,if any, for disposal of the seized assorted gold jewellery totally weighing 1028grams within fifteen days from the date of issue of the notice, failing which thesame would be disposed of without further reference to the department. Suchnotice is stated to be forwarded to the petitioners, as also put up on the noticeboard of the C.S.I. Airport. It is alleged that it was also forwarded to Mr. PrakashSingrani and Mr. Prassad Kamble, Advocate. However, it appears that there is norecord with the Customs of the same being received by the petitioners. Insofaras the notice being addressed to the Advocates was concerned, at the relevanttime, the said Advocates were not the petitioners' Advocate before thedepartment. In this regard on 13 April 2018, Shri. Prakash K. Shingrani Page 4 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtinformed the Assistant Commissioner of Customs that he had no instructionsfrom the petitioners as after released on bail, the petitioners had not contactedhim. He recorded that such fact of the notice be informed to the Consulate, andif no reply is received it may be disposed off according to law.6. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings underSection 110(1B) of the Customs Act so as to obtain an order from the Court ofMetropolitan Magistrate for the identity of the gold jewellery for disposal of thegold jewellery. Such an application came to be allowed by the learnedMetropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court by an order dated 18 May 2018 (page 132)which reads thus:- "No. SD/INT/AIU/21/2018 APD It is hereby Certified that the application U/Section 110(1B) was allowed and on 17/05/2018, I have personally verified the seized property listed below:- File No. Description of goods seized Assorted Gold jewellery (from Pax SD/INT/AIU/21/2018 APD no. 1 - 3 Crude Gold spiral Bangles - 24kt- 576 gms. Rs. 15,41,808/- and from pax no. 2- Crude Gold kada- 24kt. 320 gms- Rs. 8,56,560/- & Gold Kada- 18 Kt- 132 gms- 2,64,998/-) collectively weighing 1028 gms (i) The above listed property has been personally verified and found to be correct. (ii) The above property was photographed in my presence and the said photographs are attested by me. (iii) This certificate is not concerned with sealed condition of the above listed property. Place: Mumbai sd/- Date: 18/05/2018 (I.R. Shaikh) Metropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court, Andheri. Page 5 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt7. On 1 June 2018 a disposal order came to be passed to dispose of thepetitioner's gold jewellery. The said order reads thus: "DISPOSAL ORDER To: The Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Disposal Unit. Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai-99 The goods listed below may be disposed of at the earliest. After disposal, full particulars of disposal should be intimated to this unit with reference to this Disposal : Sr. File No. PAX Name W/H Entry Description Value in Remarks No. No. of goods Rupees01 SD/INT/AIU/21/2018 Mrs. Leyla DS-I/R2/76/ Assorted gold Rs.26,63,366/- Certificate dated AP 'D' Mahmoodi 2018 D jewellery 18.05.2018 and Mr. Location- totally regarding Mojtaba CBT-II weighing completion of Gholami 1028 grams action u/s. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, is enclosed herewith Sd/- 01.06.18(Girish Kumar Sharma) (R.B. Mishra) (Subrat Rout)I.O. AIU/'D' Batch ACS/AIU 'D' Batch Asst. Commissioner of Customs AIU,CSI Airport, Mumbai"8. On 13 June 2018 the Deputy Commissioner of Customs issued a letter ofauthority, authorizing Shri. D. P. Kshirsagar, Air Customs Superintendent, GoldDisposal Section, inter alia to withdraw the gold jewellery packages from thestrong room for the purpose of depositing in India Government Mint, Mumbai.The gold jewellery belonging to the petitioner was indicated under thefollowing entry. The relevant contents of the said authority letter are required tobe noted which read thus:- Page 6 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt "OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT) TERMINAL-2, LEVEL-II, CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAHAR, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 099.F. No. AirCus/71-01/2018-19/Pt-I Date 13.06.2018 AUTHORITY LETTER I, J. P. Singh, Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Gold Disposal Section, CSI Airport,Mumbai hereby authorize Shri D. P. Kshirsagar, Air Customs Superintendent-Gold DisposalSection, to withdraw the following packages, said to contain gold/gold jewellery from StrongRoom for the purpose of depositing in the India Government Mint, Mumbai under escort ofShri R. M. Salvi, Head Hawaldar, under supervision of Shri D.P. Kshirsagar, ACS-GoldDisposal Section and Shri Prasad S. Pednekar, ACO-Gold disposal Section, CSI Airport,Mumbai Sr. File No. No. Description Weight Value (in Rs.) Remarks No. of (in Pkg gms) s. 1 ...... 9 SD/INT/AIU/21/2018 1 One sealed pkg stc 1028 26,63,366.00 Action under AP D Assorted gold section 110 jewellery totally completed on weighing 1028 18.05.2018. grams Disposal order dated 01.06.2018. (emphasis supplied)9. On 6 July 2018 a show cause notice is stated to have been issued to thepetitioners calling upon the petitioners as to why the seized gold jewellery oughtnot to be confiscated and penalty imposed. However, it appears that before theshow cause notice could be taken to its logical conclusion and an adjudicationorder to be passed thereon, on 1 August 2018 the said gold jewellery belongingto the petitioners was sold by State Bank of India and an intimation to thateffect was issued by the State Bank of India vide letter dated 1 August 2018addressed to the Commissioner of Customs (Airport). The contents of the saidletter read thus:- Page 7 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt Date : 01.08.2018 Ref. No. BBM/2018-19/97 To, The Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Terminal - 2, Level-II Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 099. Dear Sir, DISPOSAL OF 75,520 KG. CONFISCATED GOLD-AUCTION LO NO-17, DATED 26.07.2018 With reference to your letter no. F.No. Aircus/71-01/2018-19/Pt-1- Disposal, we sold your confiscated gold through auction dated 01.08.2018 of total 75520 gms gold of 995 purity deposited with us, as per average market price per gram based on closing market price reported in three economic dailies dated 01.08.2018, i.e. Rs.2967.50 per gram. The details are as under: A Price of Gold (Highest bid price per 75520 gms 224105600.00 1 gm. rate Rs.2967.5/gm) 2967.5 2 Add - CGST @ 1.5% 3361584.00 3 Add - SGST @1.5% 3361584.00 4 Total price of Gold 230828768.00 (Inclusive of GST) 1 Price of Gold (Highest bid price per 75520 gms 224105600.00 gm. Rs.2967.5/gm) 2967.5 2 Less out of pocket expenses @ 1% 2241056.00 Less - CGST @ 9% on out of pocket 201695.00 expenses Less - SGST @ 9% on out of pocket 201695.00 expenses Net Amount Payable to Customs 221461154.00 Authority vide DD No.- 319233 dated 02.08.2018 GST amount recovered as mentioned above has been deposited with the concerned Govt. authorities. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For Asst. General Manager" Page 8 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt10. It may be observed that, as to whatever had happened within thedepartment from the date of the seizure of the gold jewellery that is on 14January 2018 till the disposal of the gold jewellery which had taken place on 1August 2018, as informed by State Bank of India, the petitioners were never putto any notice whatsoever, much less, in a manner the law would mandate thatthe petitioners' gold jewellery as seized was disposed of / sold. Surprisingly thepetitioners were kept in complete darkness either personally or through theircountry's consulate, in regard to the disposal of their gold jewellery.11. On 18 January 2019 an order-in-original came to be passed by theAdditional Commissioner of Customs. It clearly appears that before such orderscould be passed, the petitioners were not heard, the petitioners were notfurnished with the copy of the show cause notice in a manner known to law. Bysuch order-in-original, for the reasons as recorded in such order, the AdditionalCommissioner of Customs ordered absolute confiscation of the gold jewellery asalso imposed personal penalty of Rs.1,75,000/- of petitioner No.1 and personalpenalty of Rs.1,25,000/- of petitioner No.2.12. Significantly the order-in-original does not record that the gold jewellerybelonging to the petitioner was already sold and disposed of.13. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 18 January2019 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). In the Page 9 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtappeal, the petitioners stated that they have received a copy of the order throughthe Consulate of Iran on 27 February 2019. The petitioners categoricallycontended that they had no intimation of the proceedings of the show causenotice, as initiated by the Customs Officer, as also they were not aware of theorder-in-original passed on the show cause notice. It was contended that theConsulate General of Islamic Republic of Iran, Mumbai was representing thepetitioners who were based in Iran. The petitioners stated that they were theowners of the seized goods and also produced the purchase invoices dated 20June 2017 and that the gold was dutiable and not prohibited and hence, re-export of the goods may be allowed. The petitioners were represented by theVice Consul of the Consulate General of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whoargued on the grounds as raised in the appeal. The Commissioner of Customs(Appeal) passed an order on the appeal (order-in-appeal) dated 28 January 2020inter alia observing that the intention of the petitioner was nothing but tosmuggle the gold jewellery. However, while confirming the order-in-original,the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed on the petitionerfrom Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- for petitioner No.1 and from Rs.1,25,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 and to that extent, modified the order-in-original.14. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, approached theRevisional Authority namely the Principal Commissioner and Ex-officioAdditional Secretary to the Government of India, by filing a revision application Page 10 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtunder Section 129DD of the Customs Act. In the revision application, thepetitioners contended that a panchanama was drawn in English, a language notfamiliar to them. They also sought an opportunity to cross-examine thepanchas. The petitioners contended that the petitioners were tourists and wereeligible to carry gold including personal jewellery for the stay in India. Theycontended that they were not involved in any smuggling activity in the past.The petitioners contended that the jewellery under absolute confiscation wasnot dutiable as personal gold jewellery was not prohibited items and were onlyrestricted items. Another significant contention as urged by the petitioners wasthat they were not given reasonable opportunity to defend the proceedings ofthe show cause notice, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice.The respondents submitted their written reply.15. The Revisional Authority passed final orders on the petitioners' RevisionApplication dated 19 September, 2022 inter alia observing that the quantity ofthe gold jewellery was not large and that the petitioners were wearing the goldjewellery as seized. It was observed that there were no allegations that thepetitioners were habitual offenders and of being involved in similar offencesearlier. It was also observed that the quantity and facts of the case indicated thatit was a case of non-declaration of gold jewellery and not smuggling. TheRevisional Authority hence observed that in the facts and circ*mstances, themisdemeanour would be required to be kept in mind, while using discretionunder Section 125 of the Customs Act and while imposing quantum of penalty. Page 11 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtThe prayer of the petitioners that they, being foreign nationals, be allowed to re-export the gold jewellery, was also considered. The revisional authorityobserved that considering the individual case of the petitioners, the quantum ofgold jewellery being small and considering the position in law, the absoluteconfiscation of the gold jewellery was harsh and not justified. It was thus heldthat in the facts of the case, the petitioners being foreign nationals, an option tore-export the gold jewellery, on payment of redemption fine should have beenallowed. It was hence observed that the gold jewellery be permitted to be re-exported on payment of a redemption fine. Also it was observed that thereduced penalty was commensurate and was not required to be interfered.Accordingly, following order was passed by the revisional authority disposing ofthe petition:- "18. In view of the above, the Government modifies the impugned order of the Appellate Authority to the extent of the absolute confiscation of the impugned gold jewellery detailed at Table No.1 above, collectively weighing 1028 grams and valued at Rs. 26,63,366/-. The impugned gold jewellery mentioned at Table No. 1 above, having total net weight of 1028 grams, and market value of Rs. 26,63,366/- is allowed to be re-exported on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only). The reduced penalty imposed on A1 and A2 of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively is proper and judicious and the Government upholds the same. 19. The OIA passed by the AA is modified in the above terms only to the extent of modifying the absolute confiscation and granting an option to the applicants to re-export the gold jewellery on payment of a redemption fine. The penalties imposed by AA are sustained. 20. Revision Application is disposed of on the above terms." Page 12 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt16. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Revisional Authority, thepetitioners through their Advocate approached the Principal Commissioner ofCustoms vide letter dated 23 January, 2022 requesting that the RevisionalAuthority, having granted redemption of gold jewellery in question 1028 gramsvalued on payment of Rs. 5,25,000/- for re-export, requested that necessarydirections be issued to the concerned authority to inform the petitioners as towhether the gold jewellery is available with the Department for redemption tothe petitioners. On 13 October, 2022, a reminder letter was addressed by theAdvocate for the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner, that reply to the earlierletter was not received and the details were not furnished, so as to execute theorders passed on the revision application. However, as no reply was received, adetailed reminder dated 02 November, 2022 was addressed inter alia recordingthat Consulate General of Islamic Republic of Iran, Mumbai was following upthe matter, and the correct position was required to be informed to the EmbassyOfficials, as no information in regard to the availability of the confiscated goldwas being furnished. It was, therefore, requested that the authorities ought tolook into the matter and inform whether the confiscated goods were available.As no reply was received, another letter dated 24 November, 2023 came to beaddressed by the petitioners' Advocate to the Principal Commissioner ofCustoms. Making a reference to the earlier letters, it was requested that nosooner it is confirmed that the gold jewellery was available for re-export, thepetitioners would deposit the redemption fine and the penalties failing whichthe petitioners would have no alternative, but to approach the High Court. As Page 13 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtno response was received to such letter, the petitioners have filed the presentpetition making the prayers as noted above.(C) Reply Affidavits17. The respondents have filed two reply affidavits. The first reply affidavitis of Mr. G. B. Tilve, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which does notdispute that the petitioners were carrying the gold jewellery in question, whenthey reached Mumbai Airport by Oman Air Flight, on 14 January, 2018. Theaffidavit sets out the facts in relation to the adjudication of the show causenotice, the orders passed on the show cause notice, the appeal preferred by thepetitioners, orders passed by the appellate authority and thereafter in regard tothe orders passed by the revisional authority on the petitioners' revision. As thesaid facts are already discussed and subject matter of record, they need not bedetailed any further, suffice it to observe that there is no dispute that the orderspassed by the Revenue Authority would direct the Department to permit thepetitioners to re-export the gold and such order has attained finality.18. In so far as the availability of the gold is concerned, the challenge asraised to the approach of the Department in not reverting the petitioners'repeated queries that the gold be made available, so that the redemption fine canbe paid, the case of the department can be noted. It is stated in the affidavit thatNotification No.31 of 86 dated 05 February, 1986 as amended from time totime, issued under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act authorizes the CentralGovernment, to issue a notification for disposal of gold on considerations as Page 14 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtprovided in sub-section (1A), namely having regard to the perishable, hazardousnature of any goods, depreciation in the value of goods with the passage of time,constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevantconsiderations, as soon as, may be after its seizure, by following the procedureprescribed under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is stated thatthe jewellery seized from both the petitioners fell under item No.AA specifiedunder the said Notification No.31 of 86 as amended, which pertains to "gold inall forms including bullion, ingot, coin, ornament, crude jewellery". It is statedthat in view of the said provision and as gold being a precious item having highvalue, there are constraints on the storage of the same in the office for longerduration. Hence, in view of the specific provision for disposal of goods, assoon as after seizure, after following due procedure, a n action was taken byrespondents to dispose of the gold jewellery belonging to the petitioners, whichwas justified and legal. It is stated that the ownership of the seized gold hadstood vested with the Central Government post confiscation. Hence, therewas no question of depriving the petitioners of their own property.19. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is contended that Section 110 of theCustoms Act provides for a notice, such notice dated 04 April, 2018 was issuedto both the petitioners and their Advocates Mr. Prakash Shingrani and Mr.Prasad Kamble, as also the same was put on the n otice board at the a irport. Itis further contended that as per the provisions of Section 110(1B), anapplication was made before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,for identification of the petitioners' gold jewellery, t he same was allowed and Page 15 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtCertificate of verification was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrateon 18 May, 2018. It is stated that the jewellery was sold in auction throughState Bank of India as per the procedure, and to that effect a letter dated 01August, of State Bank of India was issued informing auction of the gold whichcontained the gold seized from the petitioners. In so far as the return of the goldto the petitioners is concerned, in paragraph 16 of the affidavit, it is stated asunder:- "16. With reference to Ground M, I submit that the sale proceeds of seized gold after adjusting the liabilities of the Petitioners i.e redemption fine and penalties can be returned to the Petitioners as the Revisionary Authority has upheld the confiscation of seized gold and penal action against the Petitioners. However interest is not applicable under the provisions of Section 27 A of the Customs Act, 1962 as the case does not pertain to duty."20. There is a second affidavit filed on behalf of the Department also of Mr.G. B. Tilve, Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 07 October, 2023. Thesaid affidavit is nothing but a replica of the first reply affidavit which seeks tojustify the confiscation and disposal of the gold jewellery of the petitioners.21. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Constituted Attorney of thepetitioners, reiterating the contentions as urged in the petition. The contentionsare inter alia that the sale of the petitioners jewellery is illegal being contrary tothe provisions of the Customs Act and Article 300A of the Constitution.D Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:-22. Having considered the pleadings, we now turn to the submissions asadvanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that in the present casegold jewellery was seized by the respondents from the petitioners, exercising Page 16 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtpowers under the Customs Act. It is submitted that when the gold jewellery wasseized, there was a legal obligation on the part of the respondents to preserve theproperty of the petitioners and keep the same intact. Also there was anobligation to take reasonable care of the seized jewellery so as to enable therespondents to return the gold jewellery to the petitioners, in the samecondition in which it was seized. The position was that the government was abailee until the confiscation order attained finality. It is submitted that the orderpassed by the adjudicating authority in adjudicating the show cause notice is nota final order, as it is subject to an appeal and revision. There is a likelihood that,in such further proceedings, the confiscation order in a given case may bereversed or modified, in such event the seized gold could no longer be retained.It is hence submitted that there would be a statutory obligation on therespondents to return the goods to the owner. It is next submitted that once itwas decided in favour of the petitioners who are the owners of the gold jewellerythat the same be returned either for re-export or otherwise and the said order isnot stayed by any Court, it becomes an absolute liability of the respondents toreturn the goods to the petitioners. In such case, the petitioners being theowners of the goods, have the right to demand the seized jewellery. It issubmitted that the respondents would not have any legal right to dispose of thegoods without following due procedure in law. It is further submitted that anorder for its disposal passed by the Magistrate would not in any mannerextinguish the right of the owner to demand the return of the property and theobligation of the respondents to return the gold jewellery to the petitioner and Page 17 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtin its absence, the respondents are liable to pay the market value of the seizedgold jewellery to the petitioner. It is submitted that applying the provisions ofSection 110(1A) of the Customs Act was illegal as gold does not fall within themeaning of perishable or hazardous goods. Therefore, any action on the part ofthe respondents to dispose of the said goods under Section 110 would amount toillegality. In this context, it is submitted that it is held by the Delhi High Courtin the case Zhinet Banu Nazir Dadany Vs. Union of India 1 that in case ofseizure of gold or gold ornaments / items, such goods are neither perishable norhazardous as per Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act and that such goods arerequired to be disposed of only after issuing a notice to the person from whomthe gold was seized. It is next submitted that without admitting that Section150 was applicable in the present facts, no notice under Section 150 of theCustoms Act was issued to the petitioners before the disposal of the goldjewellery. It is strongly contended that the fact of disposal of seized confiscatedgoods, was also not brought to the knowledge of the appellate authority or theRevisional Authority at any point of time.23. It is next submitted that the Revenue's Circular ReferenceF.No.711/4/2006-Cus.(AS) New Delhi dated 14 February 2006, the Board hadstressed upon the requirement of issuing notice to the owner of the goods, underany provision of the Customs Act before the disposal of the confiscated goods inrespect of which appeals / legal remedies have not been exhausted by the ownerof the goods. It is submitted that such instruction was issued by the Boardrealising that the seized goods were disposed of without issuing notice to the1 2019(367) ELT 385 (Del.) Page 18 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtowner of the goods, which resulted in a loss to the exchequer on failure tocomply with the requirements of Section 150 of the Customs Act. It issubmitted that the customs authorities have failed to adhere to the instructionsissued by the Board in regard to issuance of a notice before the disposal of thegold jewellery in question, which has resulted in undue financial loss and seriousprejudice to the petitioner. It is submitted that in the present case, the orderpassed by the Revisional Authority has attained finality which is required to beimplemented in its letter and spirit. The respondents cannot be heard to say thatsuch order would not be complied with and/or that the petitioners' goldjewellery would not be returned and made available to the petitioners for re-export. It is submitted that the petitioners in the present case have been put toundue loss and are deprived of their property, apart from serious harassment.Such actions on the part of respondents is violative of the petitioners rightguaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.24. It is next submitted that the Circular dated 6 September 2022 ismisconceived as the said circular is not binding on the petitioner. It is submittedthat such circular cannot override the statutory provisions. In support of suchcontentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in thecase Carista Herbal Products (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Pondicherry2; Union of India Vs. Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. 3; KalyaniPackaging Industry Vs. Union of India4.2 2019(370)ELT 223(Mad.)3 2016(340)ELT 310 (Gau.)4 2004(168) ELT 145 (S.C.) Page 19 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt25. In support of the submissions on illegal disposal of the gold and that thepetitioners have become entitled to return of the jewellery and / or for paymentof market value of the goods, reliance is placed on the decisions in Union ofIndia Vs. Shambhunath Karmakar5; State of Gujarat Vs. M.M.Hazi Hasan6.E. Submissions on behalf of the respondents:-26. On the other hand Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG has made thefollowing submissions: At the outset Mr. Vyas has fairly submitted that the gold jewellery subjectmatter of the proceedings in the present case, after its seizure was disposed of /sold. He however submits that the provisions of Section 150 of the Customs Actare not applicable as in the facts of the present case, the gold was already soldalthough later on confiscated. It is however submitted that proper procedurewas followed inasmuch as after seizure a show cause notice was issued to thepetitioners and an order adjudicating the show cause notice came to be passedon 6 July 2018 whereby the goods were directed to be confiscated. It is hissubmission that Section 110 with its sub-sections are applicable so as to justifythe orders passed by the respondents to dispose of the petitioners gold jewellery.Mr. Vyas has placed reliance on the Notification dated 22 December 1997(Notification No.72/97-Cus.(N.T.), to submit that as per the provisions ofSection 110(1A) of the Customs Act, by such notification, gold, in all formsincluding bullion, ingot, coin, ornament, crude jewellery, has been notified5 1986(26) ELT 719 (Cal.)6 AIR 1967 SC 1885 Page 20 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtunder the said provision. It is submitted that Section 110(1B) of the CustomsAct confers an absolute power on the department to dispose of the goldjewellery in the manner as set out in the said provision which would includepower to dispose of even prior to adjudication. It is his submission that thedepartment has strictly followed the provisions of Section 110. It is nextsubmitted that disposal of the gold jewellery in question would not amount tosale. Mr. Vyas would next submit that the power conferred on the CustomsAuthorities to dispose of gold has not been assailed by the petitioners. Thenotifications as issued by the Customs Authorities are fully applicable. He hasfurther submitted that neither the circular nor the statutory provisions areassailed by the petitioners and on this count, the petition ought not to beentertained. In support of such submissions, reliance is placed on a decision ofthis Court in Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India7.F. Analysis and Conclusion27. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, we have also perused therecord.28. At the outset, we may note some of the admitted facts. It is not in disputethat on 14 January 2018 the petitioners arrived in India and were apprehendedat the Mumbai Airport. The jewellery belonging to the petitioners which weregold bangles came to be seized by the Customs officials.7 2009(235) ELT 402(Bom) Page 21 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt29. The power of the Customs Authorities to seize the goods is conferred bySection 110 of the Customs Act and its application was subject matter of debatein the present proceedings. We thus note the said provision which reads thus:- "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things.-- (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to remove, transport, store or take physical possession of the seized goods for any reason, the proper officer may give custody of the seized goods to the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been seized, on execution of an undertaking by such person that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer: Provided further that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve an order on the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been found, directing that such person shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with such goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub- section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (1B) Where any goods, being goods specified under sub- section(1A), have been seized by a proper officer under sub- section(1), he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mark, numbers, country of origin and other particulars as the proper officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceedings under this Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of-- (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or Page 22 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt (b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (1D) Where the goods seized under sub-section (1) is gold in any form as notified under sub-section (1A), then, the proper officer shall, instead of making an application under sub-section (1B) to the Magistrate, make such application to the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction, who shall, as soon as may be, allow the application and thereafter, the proper officer shall dispose of such goods in such manner as the Central Government may determine. (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section(1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause(a)of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified: Provided further that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under section 110A, the specified period of six months shall not apply. (3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. (4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section(3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs. (5) Where the proper officer, during any proceedings under the Act, is of the opinion that for the purposes of protecting the interest of revenue or preventing smuggling, it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, by order in writing, provisionally attach any bank account for a period not exceeding six months: Page 23 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform such extension of time to the person whose bank account is provisionally attached, before the expiry of the period so specified." (emphasis supplied)30. On a plain reading of Section 110 of the Customs Act, it is quite clearthat it is a provision in relation to seizure of goods, documents and things. Itprovides that if the proper officer has a reason to believe that any goods areliable to confiscation under the Customs Act, he may seize such goods. Sub-section (1), sub-sections (1A), (1B) and (1D) are required to be cumulativelyread inasmuch as Section (1A) is the the power of Central Government to issuea notification in the Official Gazette to specify the goods or class of goods whichshall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1) be disposed of bythe proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time totime, determine after following the procedure as specified in the said provision.This having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods,depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints ofstorage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations. Sub-section(1B) provides that any goods specified under sub-section (1A), having beenseized by a proper officer under sub-section (1), he shall prepare an inventory ofsuch goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity,marks, numbers, country of origin and other particulars as the proper officermay consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceedings under the Page 24 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtCustoms Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purposeinteralia of certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or taking, inthe presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying suchphotographs as true; or allowing to draw representative samples of such goods,in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list ofsamples so drawn. Sub-Section (1C) provides that when an application is madeunder sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow theapplication. Sub-section (1D) provides that when the goods seized under sub-section (1) is gold in any form as notified under sub-section (1A), then, theproper officer shall, instead of making an application (1B) to the Magistrate,make such application to the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction, whoshall, as soon as may be, allow the application and thereafter, the proper officershall dispose of such goods in such manner as the Central Government maydetermine.31. The question is as to how and in what manner Section 110 of theCustoms Act would be applicable to the seizure of the petitioners' gold jewelleryas seized on 14 January 2018.32. Considering the effect of the provisions of sub-section (1A) to (1C) ofSection 110 of the Customs Act, even assuming that such provisions apply to theseizure in question, we may observe that there is no reason available on recordwhich would justify that there was a need to dispose of/sell the gold jewellery of Page 25 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtthe petitioners, merely because a Notification dated 22 December, 1997 undersub-section (1A) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was issued to include gold.Section 110 when permits disposal of a seized item like gold, it cannot bewithout subjective satisfaction to be recorded in writing specifying the reason,the gold required to be disposed of, for any reason as specified in sub-section(1A). We would test this proposition. Sub-section (1A) provides foreventualities which would empower the Central Government to specify thegoods or class of goods which can be disposed of by the proper officer as soon asmay be after its seizure having regard to the nature of such goods, namely in theevent the goods are perishable or hazardous or there is likely to be depreciationin the value of the goods with the passage of time, or there are constraints ofstorage space for the goods and/or any other relevant considerations. This can bedone by the Central Government by issuing a notification to be published in theOfficial Gazette specifying such goods. Thus, each of such eventualities ascontemplated under sub-section (1A) necessarily would be required to beapplied to the goods seized, so as to test, as to which of such stipulations becomeapplicable to the category of goods. The reason being that a particular class ofgoods may invite all the ingredients/eventualities whereas another category ofgoods may attract only one of the ingredients. In the event if only one of theingredients is to become applicable, then at the place of the seizure, such aneventuality is required to have factually existed and ascertained, and the properofficer would be required to record reasons, that a factual situation as fallingunder sub-section (1A) existed at such place of seizure and the place of the Page 26 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtseized goods, and hence, it would be imperative to dispose of the goods. Inshort, such reasons are required to be present and recorded by the proper officerbefore any steps are taken to deal with the goods to be disposed of, as per theprocedure as set out in sub-sections (1B), (1C) or (1D) of the Customs Act.33. Mere issuance of a notification under sub-section (1A) of Section 110 ofthe Customs Act would not suffice and enable the proper officer to have instantdisposal of the goods unless a subjective satisfaction as noted by us is emenintlypresent on any of the eventualities for such action to be resorted and the ownerof the goods is informed in that regard. To take a situation converse to what wehave observed, namely mere issuance of notification under sub-section (1A) ofSection 110 would suffice and enable the proper officer to dispose of the goods,would be a difficult proposition to be accepted, in as much as, it would certainlylead to patent arbitrariness as also may defeat the other provisions of the Act.We are thus, of the opinion that even after recourse to the provisions of sub-sections (1A) to (1D) is to be taken, the same would be required to be takenonly after a subjective satisfaction is reached by the Customs officers and thesame is brought to the knowledge of the owners of the goods that the goods arerequired to be disposed of. Failing this, the action to dispose of the goods wouldbe unilateral action leading to an unguided and arbitrary exercise of powers bythe customs officials. Such is not intention of Section 110 read with its sub-sections. It is well settled that any action of the government officials is required Page 27 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtto be supported by cogent reasons as borne out by record, failing which it wouldbe arbitrary and illegal and more so when it deals with the property of persons.34. Now applying such legitimate requirements to the facts of the presentcase, we find that no reasons whatsoever are placed on record, much less broughtto our notice, as to why it was felt necessary by the proper officer that thepetitioners' gold was required to be disposed of hurriedly on 1 June, 2018 evenprior to the issuance of show cause notice, which was issued on 6 July, 2018, i.e.one month and 5 days after the disposal order.35. Insofar as the applicability of sub-section (1D) is concerned, in thepresent case, sub-section (1D) was not applicable, as an application was made tothe Magistrate and no such application was made, as provided under sub-section(1D), to the Commissioner (Appeals).36. There is something more fundamental in the present proceedingsinasmuch as on 14 January, 2018 the gold jewellery in question was seized fromthe petitioners. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 provides that where any goodsare seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is issued underclause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goodsshall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Thus,the seizure having taken place on 14 January, 2018, six months period was toend on 14 July, 2018, however, what is significant is that a show cause notice for Page 28 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtconfiscation of such gold came to be issued to the petitioners on 6 July, 2018,however, the same was never served on the petitioners in a manner known tolaw.37. Be that as it may, it is surprising as to how such notice to confiscate thegold jewellery could be issued, when the gold jewellery stood disposed of by theAssistant Commissioner by an order dated 1 June, 2018, which was preceded bynotice dated 4 April, 2018 as noted above, although all this was not to theknowledge of the petitioners. Once the gold itself was not available forconfiscation, it is surprising as to what was the need and purpose for issuingsuch notice. This inasmuch as the confiscation of the gold jewellery in questionwould be required to be understood in terms of what Chapter XIV of theCustoms Act would provide, which contains provisions in relation toconfiscation of goods. In the said Chapter, provisions of Section 124 wouldhave significant bearing on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as Section124 provides for issuance of show cause notice before confiscation of goods.Section 124 reads thus: 124. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person-- (a) is given a notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer of Customs not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, informing] him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice Page 29 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral. Provided further that notwithstanding issue of notice under this section, the proper officer may issue a supplementary notice under such circ*mstances and in such manner as may be prescribed."38. On a plain reading of Section 124 what would be implicit is that an orderconfiscating any goods or imposing any penalty can be passed only after theowner of the goods is issued a notice in terms of the said provisions interaliainforming him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods orto impose a penalty and an opportunity of making a representation in writing isgiven to him within such reasonable time as may be specified in the noticeagainst the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty and a reaonsableopportunity of being heard. The object of the provision making an allowance ofrepresentation is to permit such person who has been issued such notice to showcause against non-confiscation. In the event, the case of the noticee is to beaccepted, the only consequence which the law would recognize would be thatthe confiscation of goods, subject matter of show cause notice, itself would bedropped. The corollary to this would be that the seized goods are required to bereleased to the owner. If they are not to be released, then Chapter XIV makesanother provision, namely, in Section 125 which provides for 'Option to payfine in lieu of confiscation'. Section 125 reads thus: Page 30 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt 125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. 1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that where the proceedings are deemed to be concluded under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 28 or under clause (i) of sub-section (6) of that section in respect of the goods which are not prohibited or restricted, the provisions of this section shall not apply: Provided further that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. (3) Where the fine imposed under sub-section (1) is not paid within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of option given thereunder, such option shall become void, unless an appeal against such order is pending. Explanation.--For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in cases where an order under sub-section (1) has been passed before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2018 receives the assent of the President and no appeal is pending against such order as on that date, the option under said sub-section may be exercised within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which such assent is received."39. Now applying such provision to the facts of the case, the situation isquite alarming, inasmuch as, on one hand, the Assistant Commissioner hadalready disposed of the gold jewellery of the petitioners before the period of sixmonths as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 110 would come intoplay, that is, almost at the fa*g end of such period of six months would come to Page 31 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtan end (8 days before such period would expire), the petitioners werepurportedly issued a show cause notice under section 124 as to why the goldjewellery of the petitioners ought not to be confiscated. As noted above suchshow cause notice in effect was meaningless as the gold jewellery itself was notavailable for confiscation.40. It is quite glaring that the respondents have failed to follow the basicprocedure, the law would recognize, namely, that knowing well that thepetitioners are foreign nationals, no attempt was made to serve show causenotice on the petitioners through the Consulate General of the Islamic Republicof Iran, when the respondents were fully aware that the petitioners were notavailable in India. The concerned officer nonetheless proceeded to adjudicatethe show cause notice and passed an Order-in-Original on 18 January, 2019without hearing the petitioners.41. Be that as it may, as noted above, now the proceedings which had arisenunder the show cause notice dated 6 July, 2018 issued to the petitioners haveattained finality in view of the Revisional Authority passing an order on 19September, 2022, whereby it has been held that absolute confiscation was notjustified in the present case and the petitioners be permitted to re-export thegold jewellery on payment of a redemption fine. Such order as seen from thefacts as noted above is incapable of compliance, inasmuch as, the gold jewelleryitself is not available for the petitioners to re-export it. This more significantly as Page 32 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtthe Revisional Authority having observed that this was not the case where thepetitioners have attempted to smuggle the gold.42. As rightly urged on behalf of the petitioners, the Assistant Commissionerwho disposed of the gold never informed either the Appellate Authority or theRevisional Authority that the seized gold jewellery of the petitioners itself wasnot available and was disposed of. This, in our opinion, is something whichraises a serious doubts on the method and manner in which the Custom officersdischarge their duties under the Act. In our opinion, even if there is a power todispose of the gold, it has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and transparently.Disposal of the property belonging to the persons like the petitioners and / or tosell the seized goods at the ipse dixit of the officers, is not what the law wouldrecognise. The procedure to dispose of such valuable commodities is required towithstand the test of law and more particularly, the constitutional requirementof reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, fairness and transparency as enshrinedunder Article 14 of the Constitution coupled with safeguarding the valuablerights of property recognized by the Constitution, under Article 300A. Itcannot be otherwise, as Section 110(1A) would be required to be read,interpreted and applied only in a manner the basic law of land under theprovisions of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, would permitthe department to so apply.43. As noted above sub-section (1A) of Section 110 cannot be read as asabsolute entitlement or authority with the proper officer to dispose of the items Page 33 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtlike gold in the absence of any cogent reasons, which would attract theingredients of sub-section (1A) of Section 110. Such reasons as falling undersub-section (1A) are required to be intimated to the owner of the goods for thereason that ultimately the disposal of the goods would entail seriousconsequences of affecting the constitutional rights of the owner of the goodsguaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, as the owner would bedeprived of his property. This would be the basic requirement of law the properofficer dealing with any goods, which are merely seized and not confiscatedwould be required to be followed. This for the reason that prior to the goodsbeing confiscated, rights in the goods, the corporeal ownership of the goodsremain with the owner of the goods and such rights do not stand vested and/ortransferred in favour of the Customs department / Government.44. Now applying such basic principles to the case in hand, we find that inthe notice dated 4 April 2018 albeit not received by the petitioners, no reasonwhatsoever was set out as to why a decision is being taken to dispose of thegoods. The contents of the said notice are required to be noted which read thus:- "OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT) TERMINAL-2, LEVEL-II, CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SAHAR, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400099. F.No.SD/INT/AIU/21/2018 AP-D Date: 04.04.2018 NOTICE The officers of this Commissionerate had seized assorted gold jewellery totally weighing 1028 grams valued at Rs.26,63,366/- from Mrs. Leyla Mahmoodi and Mr. Mojtaba Gholami, holding Iranian Passport No. M42123461 and F29961431, on their arrival from Page 34 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt Muscat by flight no.WY203 on 14.01.2018. The same was seized under panchanama in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled into India and hence liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Further, in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, a notice is being issued without prejudice to any person(s) to bring on record the objection, if any, for disposal of the seized assorted gold jewellery totally weighing 1028 grams within fifteen (15) days from the date of issue of this Notice, failing which the same will be disposed off without any further reference to them. (SUBRAT ROUT) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT C.S.I. AIRPORT. To, 1. Mrs. Leyla Mahmoodi, Mottahari 28, Hosslenzadeh 5, Palak 86, Mashhad, Iran 2. Mr. Mojtaba Gholami, Mottahari 28, Hosslenzadeh 5, Palak 86, Mashhad, Iran. 3. Notice Board of C.S.I. Airport (through CHS) 4. Mr. Prakash Singrani & Prassad Kamble, Advocate."45. It is abundantly clear from the record that the gold jewellery belonging tothe petitioners was not merely disposed of but sold by the respondents, which isclear from the respondents' own showing in the reply affidavit as alsocompounded by a letter of the State Bank of India dated 1 August 2018. Oncethe property of the ownership of the petitioners was being disposed of and / orsold, in our opinion, certainly the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitutionwould stand attracted. Article 300A of the Constitution reads thus:- "300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Page 35 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt46. It is well settled that the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitutionare available to any person including a juristic person and not confine to onlycitizen and that the illegal seizure would amount to the owner being deprived ofhis right of property as contained under Article 300A of the Constitution ofIndia. (See: Paragraph 55 of Dharam Dutt & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors. 8;paragraph 25 of State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Sujit Kumar Rana9).47. In the present case the gold jewellery belonging to the petitioners hasbeen dealt, disposed of and sold in patent disregard to the basic principles of lawas Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution would ordain. This apart, even theprovisions of the Customs Act, which we have discussed, stand violated not onlyin taking away the substantial statutory rights as the law would guarantee to thepetitioners, on seizure of the petitioners gold jewellery but also in the manner inwhich the gold jewellery has been disposed of. If such is the consequence of theactions, as taken by the respondents and the same cannot be recognized in lawon any parameters, then the only conclusion to be reached by the Court is thatthe disposal / sale of the gold jewellery belonging to the petitioner, is per seillegal, void, ab initio and unconstitutional. Once such action on the part of therespondents is being regarded as a brazen illegality, the mandate of law would beto restore to status quo ante which is the legitimate corollary to remedy suchillegality. The legal principle in this regard can be discussed.8 (2004)1 SCC 7129 (2004) 4 SCC 129 Page 36 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt48. In State of Gujarat Vs. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam. 10 involved anissue in regard to illegal seizure of the vehicles as belonging to the respondentstherein, leading to an order of confiscation being finally set aside and a claim forreturn of the vehicles being made. It so transpired that the vehicles were soldand the amounts were paid to the creditors of the respondents. It is in suchcontext the Supreme Court observed that the order of confiscation was not thefinal order and was subject to appeal / further proceedings and if the appellateauthority found that there was no good ground for exercising of power ofconfiscation, the property could no longer be retained under the Act and wasrequired to be returned to the owner, which was the statutory obligation toreturn the property. It was held that there was a legal obligation to preserve theproperty in tact, also an obligation to take reasonable care of the same so as toenable the property to be returned in the same condition in which it was seized.It was held that the respondent was entitled to return of the property or to thevalue of the property. The observations of the Supreme Court in such contextare required to be noted, which read thus:- "6. There can, therefore, be bailment and the relationship of a bailor and a bailee in respect of specific property without there being an enforceable contract. Nor is consent indispensable for such a relationship to arise. A finder of goods of another has been held to be a bailee in certain circ*mstances. 7. On the facts of the present case, the State Government no doubt seized the said vehicles pursuant to the power under the Customs Act. But the power to seize and confiscate was dependent upon a customs offence having been committed or a suspicion that such offence had been committed. The order of the Customs Officer was not final as it was subject to an appeal and if the appellate authority found that there was no good ground for the exercise of that power, the property could no longer be retained and had under10 AIR 1967 SC 1889 Page 37 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odt the Act to be returned to the owner. That being the position and the property being liable to be returned there was not only a statutory obligation to return but until the order of confiscation became final an implied obligation to preserve the property intact and for that purpose to take such care of it as a reasonable person in like circ*mstances is expected to take. Just as a finder of property has to return it when its owner is found and demands it, so the State Government was bound to return the said vehicles once it was found that the seizure and confiscation were not sustainable. There being thus a legal obligation to preserve the property intact and also the obligation to take reasonable care of it so as to enable the Government to return it in the same condition in which it was seized, the position of the State Government until the order became final would be that of a bailee. If that is the correct position once the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Customs Officer and the Government became liable to return the goods the owner had the right either to demand the property seized or its value, if, in the meantime the State Government had precluded itself from returning the property either by its own act or that of its agents or servants. This was precisely the cause of action on which the respondent's suit was grounded. The fact that an order for its disposal was passed by a Magistrate would not in any way interfere with or wipe away the right of the owner to demand the return of the property or the obligation of the Government to return it. The order of disposal in any event was obtained on a false representation that the property was an unclaimed property. Even if the Government cannot be said to be in the position of a bailee, it was in any case bound to return the said property by reason of its statutory obligation or to pay its value if it had disabled itself from returning it either by its own act or by any act of its agents and servants. In these circ*mstances, it is difficult to appreciate how the contention that the State Government is not liable for any tortious act of its servants can possibly arise. The decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati, (AIR 1962 SC 933) and Kasturi Lal v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1039), to which Mr. Dhebar drew our attention, have no relevance in view of the pleadings of the parties and the cause of action on which the respondent's suit was based."49. In "Union of India Vs. Shambhunath Karmakar & Ors." (supra) theDivision Bench of the Calcutta High Court on a plea of the respondents thereinfor return of the gold ornaments, which were seized from them which wereforwarded for melting, it was observed that the owner of the goods was entitledto claim damages for disposal of the seized gold. It was observed that the cause Page 38 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtof action for return of the gold accrued on the date the confiscation order wasset aside and the owner became entitled to obtain return of the seized gold. Itwas observed that the seized gold was not sold to a third party for value and thatif the seized gold has been forwarded for melting to the Government of India, itreally amounted to appropriation of the gold by another department of theGovernment. It was also observed that if the gold and gold ornaments weremelted, the same resulted only in the change of form. The Court observed theGovernment would continue to hold the melted gold in some form or other andtherefore, the Government was bound to return the said gold or the value. It wasalso observed that at the time when the confiscation order was set aside, both inequity and law status quo ante prior to the passing of the consfication orderought to be restored.50. In Zhinet Banu Nazir Dadany (supra) a Division Bench of the DelhiHigh Court was dealing with a similar situation, as in the present case, whereinthe gold as seized by the respondent was disposed of when the same was neitherperishable nor hazardous. In such context, the Division Bench held that the goldcould not have been hurriedly disposed of and in the absence of a show causenotice being served on the petitioners. It was held that there was no reason toproceed to the disposal of the seized gold without notice, and that too withoutpassing any order on adjudication and accordingly set aside the seizure of thegold with a direction that the proceeds which were collected in the auctionwhich were equal to the vary of the gold ought to be refunded to the petitioner Page 39 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtwith interest. The relevant observations of the Court in para 22 and 23 whichreads thus: "22. There is no explanation offered by the Respondents as to why they were constrained to dispose of the seized gold, when it was neither perishable nor hazardous. Also, there is no answer why it had to be disposed of without notice being issued to the person from whom it was seized. This irrespective of whether the SCN was served or not. The SBEC has issued a circular dated 14th February 2006 in this regard where it was impressed upon the field formations as under: "An instance has recently been brought to the notice of the Board where seized goods were disposed of without issuing notice to the owner of the goods. The seizure having been set aside by the adjudicating authority, the owner of the goods sought their return but was advised to obtain the sale proceeds, which were significantly lower than the seizure value. In subsequent proceedings, the High Court has directed the refund of an amount higher than the Sale proceeds, as well as payment of interest. The loss of the exchequer has resulted from a failure to comply with the requirements of Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. It is impressed upon field formations that where any goods, not being confiscated goods, are to be sold under any provision of the Customs Act, they shall be sold by public auction or by tender or in any other manner after notice to the owner of the goods. 3. It is further clarified that the requirement to issue notice to the owner of the goods shall also obtain in case of goods that have been confiscated but in respect of which all appeal/legal remedies have not been exhausted by the owner of the goods." 23. In the present case with the seized material not being perishable, being gold bars there was no reason for the Respondents to have hurriedly disposed it off and that too without notice to the Petitioner. When it was plain that even the SCN was not served upon the Petitioner, there was no reason to proceed with disposal of the seized gold without notice. It also appears that the Respondents hurriedly went ahead and passed an adjudication order more than four years after the gold was seized only after the present petition was filed. ... ... .. ... ..."51. In our opinion, the petitioners would also be correct in contending thatthe impugned action of the respondents in the present case was in the teeth of Page 40 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtthe CBEC instructions dated 14 February 2006. The relevant extract as reliedon behalf of the petitioners reads thus: "8. As per CBEC instructions vide letter F. No. 711/4/2006-Cus. (AS), dated 14.02.2006, before selling the goods Notice must be given to the owner/importer. The text of the circular is reproduced herewith- As instance has recently been brought to the notice of the Board where seized goods were disposed of without issuing notice to the owner of the goods. The seizure having been set aside by the adjudicating authority, the owner of the goods sought their return but was advised to obtain the sale proceeds, which were significantly lower than the seizure value. In subsequent proceedings, the High Court has directed the refund of an amount higher than the sale proceeds, as well as payment of interest. The loss to the exchequer has resulted from a failure to comply with the requirements of Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is impressed upon filed formations that where any goods, not being confiscated goods, are to be sold under any provision of the Customs Act, they shall be sold by public auction or by tender or in any other manner after notice to the owner of the goods. It is further clarified that the requirement to issue notice to the owner of the goods shall also obtain in case of goods that have been confiscated but in respect of which all appeal/legal remedies have not been exhausted by the owner of the goods."52. We are also of the opinion that the concerned officer of the respondentsin the present case has completely overlooked that the gold jewellery in questionwas sold / disposed of at the stage of the seizure, in fact, prior to the issuance of ashow cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, being issued to thepetitioners, much less prior to any order of confiscation being passed, whichcame to be passed on 18 January 2019. Such order was certainly subjected to anappeal as per the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, before theAppellate Authority and thereafter, a revision being maintainable under theprovisions of Section 129DD before the Central Government. It was thus an Page 41 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtobligation on the concerned Customs officials as conferred by law to preservethe gold jewellery belonging to the petitioner unless the circ*mstances forjustified reasons or otherwise were against preservation of the said goods that forno reason whatsoever the goods ought not to be preserved, till the proceedingsattain finality. In the present case there are none.53. We may also sound a note of caution that it would be travesty of justice,as also a patent illegality if in the teeth of the well settled principle of law andconstitutional provisions conferring right to property, any authority beingconferred on the Customs officials purportedly under Section 110 to dispose ofthe seized goods, can be recognized, merely because the goods are seized underthe Customs Act. The Customs official without recording cogent and acceptablereasons and without a prior notice being issued to the owner of the goods or thepersons from whom the goods are seized, would not wield a power / authority tosell and/or dispose of the seized goods, and more particularly, valuable items likegold. Such unbridled power cannot be recognized under the provisions ofSection 110 of the Customs Act, and if any action contrary to the legitimateprinciples of law as applicable and discussed by us hereinabove, is sought to betaken, the same would be rendered illegal.54. In other words, the scheme as envisaged under Section 110 cannot beread to mean that mere seizure of the gold by the Customs Officer can beconstrued to confer any power, authority to sell the goods without following thedue procedure in law namely of a prior notice of hearing being granted to the Page 42 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtowner of the goods, or to the person from whom the goods are seized, when theproperty of the ownership of a person is sought to be deprived to him by sale ordisposal of the goods. It would be fallacious to read into the scheme of Section110(1) read with (1A) to (1D) any power to be exercised by the Customsofficials which is not based on cogent reasons and which can be exercisedwithout due procedure being not followed, apart from such action satisfying thetest of lack of any illegal motives, non arbitrariness, reasonableness and fairness,on the part of the Customs Officials.55. In the present case, it is difficult to imagine as to what could be thereason for the Customs Officers to dispose of the goods hurriedly and with suchlightening speed and by throwing to the wind the norms of fairness andreasonableness. This is not acceptable even from the reading of the provisions ofSection 110. Any reading of Section 110 otherwise than what has beendiscussed above, would amount to foisting draconian, reckless and/or unfetteredauthority on the Customs Officers conferring a licence to commit illegality. Infact the recognition of any such power with the Custom Officers would lead toan anomalous situation of the substantive provisions and procedure forconfiscation and the appellate/revisional remedy being rendered meaningless,only to be realized that any order for return of property at any stage of suchproceedings, would merely remain a paper order, impossible of implementation/execution. Thus, such substantive provisions of the Customs Act cannot berendered nugatory, by recognizing unguided and unfettered powers being Page 43 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtconferred under Section 110 on the Customs Officers, to dispose of the seizedproperty, till the orders of any confiscation attains finality, unless there are strongreasons which would justify any such action when tested on such constitutionaland legal parameters, and that too on the satisfaction of the officers to bereached only after hearing the owner of the property.56. In so far as the reliance on on behalf of the respondents on the decisionof this Court in the case of Shabbir Ahmed Abdul Rehman (supra). In our view,the said decision does not take the case of the respondents any further for morethan one reason. The Court in para 9 of such decision has observed that theRevenue Authorities were not justified in selling the gold, during the pendencyof the appeal. In the present case, we have held that action of the respondent inselling gold pending the appeal/revisional proceeding was bad in law. Secondly,in such case, the revenue had informed the assessee that gold has been handedover to the New House of Customs for disposal, which is not the case before us,inasmuch as no such notice was given to the petitioner before disposal of thegold. Thirdly, on the issue as to whether the assessee was justified in claimingthe market value of the said gold, this Court observed that the market value ofgold was diminishing, at the relevant time, hence in the fact situation, the claimof the petitioner in seeking market value of the gold was not accepted. Whereasin the proceedings before us there is no such contention that the value of thegold is falling. Lastly the said decision did not decide on the petitionersentitlement to the return of the gold, but decided the claim with respect to Page 44 of 46 -------------------------::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2023 09:54:22 ::: 902-wp-467-2023reserved-19-12-23.odtmarket value of the gold when prices were going down. In the case before usthere is specific prayer for return of gold.57. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no manner of doubt that the petitionneeds to succeed. The question, however, is as to what can be the relief whichcan be granted to the petitioners in these circ*mstances, when there is no iota ofdoubt, in regard to illegality which has been committed by the respondents indepriving the petitioners of their valuable rights to property. In suchcirc*mstances, in our considered opinion, the principles of law which would berequired to be applied, is that once the action of the respondents is held to bevoid, ab initio, illegal and unconstitutional, there can be no second opinion thatthe rights of the petitioners in regard to illegal seizure would be required to berestituted. In such context, we also cannot be oblivious to the directions asissued by the Central Government in passing the orders dated 19 September2022 on the petitioners' revision, whereby the Central Government haspermitted the petitioners to re-export the gold jewellery.58. In the light of the above discussion, interest of justice would require thatthe petition be allowed by granting the following reliefs to the petitioners:- ORDER

(i) It is declared that the action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of

Customs in disposing of / selling the gold jewellery belonging to the petitioners

subject matter of the present proceedings, is illegal and unconstitutional.

Page 45 of 46

Leyla Mahmoodi Through Ca Sandip Kadam vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs (2024)

Bombay High Court

Leyla Mahmoodi Through Ca Sandip Kadam vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 21 December, 2023

Author: G. S. Kulkarni

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

FAQs

Who is the proper officer under Customs Act? ›