TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of petitioner over seized gold bars communication error, orders release with conditions.</h1> <h3>K.H. Mohamed Ismail (alias) Kose Hajamohideen Mohamed Ismail Versus The Assistant Commissioner (AIU) O/o. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Disposal-Air)</h3> K.H. Mohamed Ismail (alias) Kose Hajamohideen Mohamed Ismail Versus The Assistant Commissioner (AIU) O/o. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The ... Issues:Challenge to communication for disposal of seized gold bars without adjudication order; Request for release of seized goods; Allegation of fabricated letter by respondents; Compliance with statutory provisions for release of goods.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged a communication dated 10.11.2016, which stated that the seized gold bars would be disposed of unless a stay was obtained, despite no adjudication order being passed. The petitioner sought release of the goods based on a Mahazar dated 23.12.2015.2. The petitioner's journey from Abu Dhabi to Chennai on 23.12.2015 led to the seizure of four gold bars weighing 466 grams, valued at Rs. 11,93,892. A writ petition filed earlier directed the completion of adjudication proceedings before seeking release of the gold bars.3. The petitioner's subsequent writ petition challenged the denial of provisional release of goods on 12.02.2016. The petitioner argued against confiscation without an adjudication order and claimed no show cause notice was issued within the statutory period.4. The petitioner contended that the respondents wrongly relied on a letter from 23.12.2015 to deny release, alleging the contents were fabricated. The petitioner cited a Delhi High Court judgment for support.5. The respondents admitted the absence of an adjudication order and acknowledged errors in the communication. The respondents argued for the power to proceed with adjudication despite the errors.6. The court found the communication erroneous and ruled that absolute confiscation required an adjudication order. Despite the petitioner's waiver of notice, the court ordered release of the goods due to the prolonged adjudication delay.7. The court quashed the communication, allowing for adjudication within four weeks and release of the gold bars upon furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the value and a personal bond for the remaining amount. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
