2016 (3) TMI 795 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of Writ Petition for Seized Gold Release under Customs Act; Adjudication Process Directive

K.H. Mohamed Ismail (Alias), Kose Hajamohideen Mohamed Ismail Versus The Commissioner of Customs-Airport, The Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs-Airport

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking provisional release of seized gold under the Customs Act. It directed the respondents to commence and ... Seeking direction to provisional release of goods under section 110A of the Customs Act - Seizure of goods pending adjudication - Held that:- since the adjudication has not yet been commenced, the respondents are directed to commence the adjudication at the earliest and complete the adjudication within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner can seek for release of the gold seized by the respondent after the completion of the adjudication. - Decided against the petitioner Issues:- Provisional release of seized gold pending adjudication under Customs Act- Applicability of section 110A of the Customs Act for provisional release- Justification for seizing gold under sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act- Commencement of adjudication process by the respondents- Precedents regarding release of seized goods by the court- Direction to commence adjudication and timeline for completionAnalysis:The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus for the provisional release of 466.56 gms of gold seized by the authorities pending adjudication in a specific case. The petitioner claimed innocence, declaring the possession of gold upon arrival and showing the purchase bill. The petitioner argued for provisional release under section 110A of the Customs Act, citing entitlement under the provision. The petitioner's representation for release was not acted upon by the authorities, leading to the court intervention.The respondents countered that the gold was seized based on suspicion and subsequent discovery of concealed gold bars during a detailed examination. They justified the seizure under sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, indicating liability for confiscation. The respondents referenced a previous court order regarding provisional release of seized gold under similar circumstances, emphasizing the legal basis for confiscation.The court noted that adjudication had not commenced despite the seizure, prompting a directive for the respondents to initiate and complete the process within twelve weeks. The court referenced past judgments where gold was released under specific conditions, highlighting the need for timely adjudication. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an application under section 110A of the Customs Act for further consideration by the authorities, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the provisional release of seized gold, the legal basis for seizure under the Customs Act, the necessity for adjudication commencement, and the petitioner's recourse under relevant provisions. The court provided a timeline for adjudication completion, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and past precedents in similar cases.