2025 (2) TMI 30 - HC - Customs

Gold jewelry confiscation order set aside, case remitted for redemption fine under Section 125

Smt. Jhansi Rani, W/o. Shri Sathyanarayana Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-Air), The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), The Principal Commissioner and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to Government of India, Mumbai

Smt. Jhansi Rani, W/o. Shri Sathyanarayana Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-Air), The ... The judgment from the Madras High Court revolves around the confiscation of gold jewelry carried by a petitioner, who was intercepted at the airport upon returning from Dubai. The core issues considered by the court include the legality of the absolute confiscation of the gold jewelry, the applicability of relevant customs laws and notifications, and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition.1. Issues Presented and ConsideredThe primary legal issues considered in this case are:Whether the absolute confiscation of the gold jewelry by the customs authorities was justified under the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the petitioner was an 'eligible passenger' under the relevant customs notifications and rules, thereby affecting the legality of the confiscation.Whether the Madras High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order passed by the customs authorities in Mumbai.2. Issue-Wise Detailed AnalysisConfiscation of Gold JewelryLegal Framework and Precedents: The confiscation was carried out under Section 111(d) and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, which deal with the confiscation of goods imported contrary to any prohibition and the imposition of penalties for such actions. The court referenced the case of Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai-I Vs. P.Sinnasamy and other judgments to interpret the term 'prohibited goods.'Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court held that while gold is not explicitly listed as a prohibited item, it can be considered 'prohibited' if the conditions for its import are not met. The court emphasized that the failure to declare the gold and comply with customs requirements rendered it liable for confiscation.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner failed to declare the gold jewelry upon arrival and attempted to pass through the Green Channel, which is meant for passengers with nothing to declare.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal principles to the facts, concluding that the petitioner's actions amounted to an attempt to smuggle the gold without paying the requisite customs duty.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that gold is not a notified item under Section 11 of the Customs Act, and therefore, absolute confiscation was unwarranted. However, the court rejected this argument, citing the failure to meet the conditions for import.Conclusions: The court concluded that the confiscation was justified under the law, given the petitioner's failure to declare the gold and comply with customs regulations.Jurisdiction of the CourtLegal Framework and Precedents: The jurisdictional issue was addressed with reference to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which outline the powers of High Courts to issue certain writs and exercise supervisory jurisdiction.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered whether it had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, given that the order was passed by the customs authority in Mumbai.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the cause of action partly arose within its jurisdiction, as the initial customs order was passed in Chennai.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of territorial jurisdiction, concluding that it had the authority to entertain the petition.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 due to the location of the customs authority. The court, however, overruled this objection.Conclusions: The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, as part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.3. Significant HoldingsCore Principles Established: The court reaffirmed that goods not declared at customs and not complying with import conditions can be treated as 'prohibited' and subject to confiscation. It also clarified the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned order of absolute confiscation and remitted the case back to the customs authority to allow for the redemption of the gold upon payment of a redemption fine. The court directed the customs authority to permit the petitioner to re-export the confiscated gold jewelry upon fulfilling the necessary conditions.The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with customs regulations and the conditions for importing goods, particularly in the context of gold, which, although not explicitly prohibited, is subject to specific import conditions. The court's decision also highlights the nuanced interpretation of jurisdictional principles under the Indian Constitution.