Customs authorities must reconsider seized gold ownership claims within six months after failing to consider petitioner's evidence

Bombay HC directed customs authorities to reconsider petitioner's representations regarding seized foreign marked gold bars within six months, without being influenced by the original order dated 13th January 2023. The court noted that the Show Cause Notice failed to consider petitioner's email claiming ownership of the gold. Status quo must be maintained regarding the seized gold until decision is made. If petitioner proves ownership, authorities must restore the gold, equivalent amount, or compensate at current market value. Personal hearing must be provided before deciding the representations. Petition disposed of.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash a Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice and grant a personal hearing regarding the confiscation of gold.

Case Details:
The Petitioner, a jeweler conducting business in multiple Indian cities, claimed ownership of 511.60 grams of Indian-marked gold purchased by them. They entrusted this gold to a logistics entity for transfer to another jeweler on a job work basis. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged smuggling of foreign marked gold bars by logistic companies, leading to the detention of 32.380 kgs of gold, including the Petitioner's gold. Despite the Petitioner's claims, the Respondents did not consider their ownership and issued a Show Cause Notice for confiscation without personal hearing or acknowledgment of the Petitioner's ownership.

The Petitioner repeatedly communicated their ownership of the gold to the Respondents through letters, but received no response or consideration. The Respondents passed an Order-in-Original confiscating the gold and imposing penalties, noting multiple ownership claims but refraining from making decisions on ownership. The Petitioner's representations were consistently ignored, leading to the current legal challenge seeking a fair consideration of their claims.

Judgment:
The court directed Respondent No. 1 to consider all representations made by the Petitioner within six months, providing a personal hearing and excluding influence from the previous Order-in-Original. Until a decision is made, the status quo regarding the gold's ownership is to be maintained. If the Petitioner's ownership is proven, the Respondents must return the gold or provide equivalent compensation based on the gold's market value. The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, issuing the necessary directives and disposing of the petition without costs.

---