2017 (7) TMI 511 - HC - Customs

Release of Confiscated Currencies Ordered Despite Pending Petition

Abdul Rahim Sahabudeen Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Airport)

The Court directed the Customs Department to release the confiscated Indian currencies as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I), despite a ... Reduction of quantum of redemption fine and penalty - release of confiscated Indian Currencies - implementation of order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) - Held that: - reliance was placed in the case of M/s NVR Forgings Versus Union of India and others [2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the order in appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers of the same rank which is not permissible as per law - this Court is inclined to issue direction to the respondents for implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) by releasing the Indian Currencies, subject to the payment of redemption fine and penalty, as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) and furnishing a bond securing the interest of the Revenue - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues involved:Request for return of confiscated Indian currencies without declaration, challenge of order by Customs Department, pending Revision Petition, applicability of previous court decisions, jurisdiction of Revisional Authority, implementation of Commissioner's order.Detailed Analysis:1. Confiscation and Appeal:The petitioner was found in possession of Indian currencies without declaration and faced confiscation under the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking implementation of the Commissioner's order for return of the confiscated amount.2. Pending Revision Petition:The Customs Department argued that a Revision Petition had been filed with the Central Government, and thus, they could not comply with the Commissioner's order until the Revisional Authority made a decision. However, the Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the Revisional Authority could not pass orders against an officer of the same rank, indicating a potential lack of jurisdiction in this case.3. Applicability of Previous Court Decisions:The Court cited a case where it directed the release of goods based on the inadequacy of the Revisional Authority's jurisdiction. It also mentioned a Supreme Court dismissal of a Review Petition, reinforcing the lack of jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority in the present matter.4. Implementation of Commissioner's Order:Considering the lack of Revisional Authority's jurisdiction, the Court directed the Customs Department to release the Indian currencies as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I). The petitioner was required to pay the redemption fine and penalty, furnish a bond, and the Customs Department could proceed if the Revisional Authority's jurisdiction was rectified.5. Final Decision:The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for the release of the Indian currencies upon compliance with the Commissioner's order within 15 days of furnishing the bond. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed, concluding the legal proceedings.This detailed analysis reflects the Court's considerations regarding the confiscation, appeal process, pending Revision Petition, previous court decisions, jurisdictional issues, and the ultimate implementation of the Commissioner's order in the case involving confiscated Indian currencies.