Writ petition dismissed for three-year delay in challenging customs duty order for gold diversion

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a customs duty order dated 12.02.2020 due to inordinate delay, as the petition was filed only on 21.06.2023 after more than three years. The petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 73,52,935/- customs duty plus Rs. 3,26,547/- interest for alleged diversion of 25 kgs duty-free gold. The court held the writ petition was not maintainable since the impugned order was appealable, and an alternative remedy existed. A Division Bench had previously dismissed a similar petition involving the same parties on identical grounds.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenging the proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, seeking refund of customs duty and interest, allegations of diversion of duty-free gold, issuance of show cause notice, final order passed by the authorities, and the maintainability of the writ petition.

Proceedings Initiated by Principal Commissioner of Customs:
The writ petition sought to quash the proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate, for refund of customs duty and interest. The petitioner, engaged in the business of gold and gold jewellery, alleged that the authorities had demanded payment for alleged diversion of duty-free gold purchased from a specific agency. The authorities passed a final order directing the petitioner to pay customs duty, interest, and penalties, which the petitioner challenged in the writ petition.

Allegations of Diversion of Duty-Free Gold:
The petitioner was accused of diverting duty-free gold purchased from a nominated agency for export but allegedly selling it in the local market instead. The authorities issued a show cause notice regarding the diversion of 25 kgs of gold and subsequent sale in the local market, leading to the petitioner voluntarily paying the customs duty amount. The authorities also imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of the gold allegedly diverted.

Challenging the Orders and Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The petitioner challenged the orders on various grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, improper application of mind, mechanical passing of the order, and violation of rules and limitations. The petitioner contended that the actions of the authorities were without proper justification and explanation. The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments to support the writ petition's maintainability despite statutory remedies of appeal being available.

Maintainability of Writ Petition and Delay:
The respondent argued against the maintainability of the writ petition, citing alternative statutory remedies available to the petitioner. The court considered the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, which was lodged more than three years after the impugned order. The court noted that the delay was unjustified, despite explanations provided by the petitioner, and also referenced a previous case where a similar petition was dismissed due to an alternative remedy being available.

Judgment and Dismissal of Writ Petition:
The court dismissed the writ petition, citing reasons such as inordinate delay, lack of merit in the petitioner's explanations for the delay, and the availability of alternative remedies. The court highlighted that a similar case involving the same parties had been dismissed previously on the grounds of appealability. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable, and costs were not awarded.

---