2019 (8) TMI 1823 - HC - Customs

Confiscation Order Overturned, Petitioner Granted 30 Days to File Objections for Fair Process

The Court set aside the confiscation order of 15.160 kg of Gold Bars due to the petitioner's lack of opportunity during the process. Despite prior ... Violation of principles of Natural Justice - Seizure and Confiscation of Gold - no opportunity was provided to him when the confiscation order in original came to be passed - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of the Order in Original dated 17.02.2015, it is seen that the Joint Commissioner of Customs had observed that the personal hearing was granted on 12.08.2014 and 17.09.2014, at which point of time, the authorised representative of the petitioner requested for adjournment which was also considered and the time was extended to 29.09.2014. On that date, no one had appeared for the personal hearing and no written reply was filed and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed - there are no infirmity in such an observation that inspite of opportunities being granted on earlier three occasions, the petitioner was not ready to get along with the adjudication and thereby, it can be said that opportunities were extended to the petitioner. Nevertheless, it is also seen from the letter of the authorised representative of the petitioner that a mention has been made with regard to the pendency of this Writ Petition before this Court and therefore, they sought for time challenging the show cause notice issued prior to the confiscation order. This Court is of the view that if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to substantiate his claim before the original authorities by taking a lenient view, the ends of Justice would be met. As such without going into the merits of the case or any of the other grounds raised by the petitioner, the Order in Original is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent herein for fresh consideration - petition disposed off. Issues: Challenge of seizure of Gold Bars and confiscation order; Lack of opportunity during confiscation order; Request for remanding the matter for reconsideration.In this case, the petitioner challenged the seizure of 15.160 kg of Gold Bars and the subsequent confiscation order. The main contention raised was the lack of opportunity provided during the confiscation order process. The petitioner's counsel argued that no opportunity was given for a hearing before the confiscation order was passed, seeking a remand for reconsideration to extend such an opportunity.The respondent's counsel contended that sufficient opportunities were indeed extended to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to avail them. The Order in Original revealed that the petitioner's authorized representative had requested adjournments during the personal hearings granted on multiple occasions, eventually leading to the passing of the impugned order due to the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to file a written reply.Upon examining the facts, the Court noted that despite opportunities being granted, the petitioner did not cooperate with the adjudication process. However, considering the mention of the pending Writ Petition before the Court in the representative's letter, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's difficulty in responding in time due to the ongoing legal proceedings.The Court decided to set aside the Order in Original and remand the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was given 30 days to file objections, and the respondent was directed to dispose of the objections within three months thereafter, emphasizing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to substantiate their claim. The Court concluded the Writ Petition without imposing any costs, aiming to ensure the ends of justice were met through a more equitable process.