2025 (7) TMI 1151 - HC - Customs

Petitioner wins release of smuggled gold after paying specified amounts and warehousing charges

Rakesh Kumar Jat Versus Commissioner Of Customs.

The petitioner sought release of smuggled gold, challenging an order passed without a show cause notice, alleging violation of natural justice principles. ... Smuggling of Gold - seeking release of the gold - impugned order passed without passing of scn - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since the Petitioner has already agreed to abide by the impugned order, let the impugned order be given effect to by the Customs Department within a period of two weeks from now and the said gold piece shall be released to the Petitioner upon the payment of the amounts in terms of the said order. Accordingly, the Petitioner shall appear before the Customs Department and may collect the detained gold item through an Authorised Representative, in which case, the detained item shall be released after receiving a proper email from the Petitioner or some form of communication that the Petitioner has no objection to the same being released to the concerned Authorised Representative - In the facts of this case, 50% warehousing charges shall also be liable to be paid by the Petitioner. Petition disposed off. ISSUES: Whether the impugned Order-in-Original passed without issuance of a Show Cause Notice violates principles of natural justice.Whether the gold piece seized at customs can be confiscated under sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-declaration.Whether an option to redeem confiscated goods on payment of a fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an undertaking for re-export, is legally permissible.Whether the imposition of penalty under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified.Whether the detained goods can be released to an Authorized Representative upon communication from the owner.Whether warehousing charges are payable by the petitioner in the circumstances of detention and release. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court noted the absence of a Show Cause Notice but did not set aside the impugned order, allowing the order to be given effect to, implicitly holding that the procedural lapse did not vitiate the order.The confiscation of the gold piece was upheld under sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to declare the goods at the customs channels.The Court upheld the option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of Rs. 25,000/- fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to the condition that the petitioner undertakes re-export and does not dispute the identity and valuation of the goods.The penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed.The detained gold piece may be released to an Authorized Representative upon receipt of proper communication from the petitioner, confirming no objection to such release.The petitioner is liable to pay 50% warehousing charges for the period of detention before release. RATIONALE: The Court applied the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) relating to confiscation for non-declaration and related offenses, Section 125 for redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine, and sections 112(a) and 112(b) for imposition of penalty.The Court recognized the petitioner's residency abroad as evidenced by a valid State of Kuwait Civil ID Card, which justified allowing the redemption option with re-export condition.The Court permitted release through an Authorized Representative to facilitate procedural convenience, subject to proper communication, reflecting a pragmatic approach.No dissent or doctrinal shift was recorded; the decision reflects adherence to existing statutory framework and procedural norms under the Customs Act.