2020 (7) TMI 639 - HC - Customs

Court directs timely decision on seized gold release, prioritizing due process and fair hearing for affected parties.

M.L. FRANCIS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

The High Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case but directed the respondent to decide on the application for provisional release of ... Release of seized goods - raid - handling of illegally imported gold - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent to decide application Ext.P4 for provisional release of the gold seized vide Ext.P2 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as well as custom officials. Let the decision be taken within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of this judgment. Issues Involved:Petition for quashing of Ext.P2 seizure Mahassar and direction for release of seized gold.Analysis:The petitioner, a goldsmith by profession with a valid license, sought relief from the High Court to quash the seizure of gold and obtain a mandamus for its release. The seizure occurred during a raid by customs officers who suspected the handling of illegally imported gold at the petitioner's residence. The petitioner faced significant difficulties in his daily business activities due to the seizure, prompting a request for provisional release dated 22.10.2019, which was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent ordinance dated 31.03.2020. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the adverse impact of the seizure on the petitioner's livelihood.Upon hearing the arguments presented by both parties and examining the relevant documents, the Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case but issued a directive to the respondent to decide on the application for provisional release (Ext.P4) of the seized gold (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing to both the petitioner and customs officials before making a decision. The Court stipulated that the decision on the application should be made within a month from the receipt of the judgment copy, thereby bringing the writ petition to a conclusion.This judgment underscores the significance of due process and fair consideration in matters involving the seizure and release of goods, particularly in cases where livelihoods are at stake. The Court's directive for a timely decision on the application for provisional release reflects a balanced approach aimed at resolving the issue efficiently while upholding the principles of justice and procedural fairness.