2019 (6) TMI 806 - HC - Customs

Court upholds Customs confiscation order, highlights appeal remedy. Petitions dismissed, Circular challenge rejected.

Anirudh Verma, Lalit Kulthia Proprietor BSK Jewellers, Sanjay Kulthia Versus Union of India & Ors.

The High Court dismissed three petitions challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscating gold bars and imposing penalties ... Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT:- There is an efficacious alternative remedy available from the impugned order dated 9th May, 2017 to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - The petitioner's grievance with regard to the merits of the impugned order including non-granting of cross-examination would be considered by the Commissioner of (Appeals) and adjudicated upon. It does not warrant interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. However, while we dismiss the petitions, we make it clear that in case the petitioner does file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three weeks from today, the Commissioner (Appeals) would entertain the appeal on its own merits as the time spent in prosecuting these petitions before this Court has to be excluded. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging order of Additional Commissioner of Customs, confiscation of gold bars, imposition of penalties under Customs Act, jurisdiction of High Court to entertain petition challenging order, alternative remedy of appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), applicability of Circular on monetary limits for adjudication proceedings.Analysis:1. The judgment involves three petitions challenging a common order dated 9th May, 2017 by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Preventive Mumbai. The order confiscated gold bars valued at Rs. 3.17 crores and imposed penalties under Sections 111(b)(d)(l) and 112(a)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that the order was without jurisdiction, citing Circular No. 1053 which sets monetary limits for adjudication proceedings.2. The petitioners contended that the Circular's monetary limits apply only to proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994, not the Customs Act. Therefore, they argued that the impugned order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs was not without jurisdiction, and the High Court should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction.3. The petitioners also raised concerns about the merits of the impugned order, specifically the non-granting of cross-examination. However, the High Court held that an efficacious alternative remedy was available through an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), where grievances on the merits of the order could be addressed and adjudicated upon.4. The High Court dismissed the petitions but clarified that if the petitioners file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within three weeks, the appeal would be entertained on its own merits. The Court cited a Supreme Court decision to exclude the time spent on the petitions from the appeal period. The petitioners were reminded of the statutory requirements, including pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Act, for filing an appeal.5. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the three petitions based on the above terms, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for addressing grievances regarding the impugned order.