TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenge dismissed; petitioners must pay redemption fine, comply with Order-in-Original and appear before Customs on 10 November 2025</h1> <h3>Muyassar Yusupova Through Ozod Yusupov and Another Versus Commissioner of Customs.</h3> The HC dismissed the challenge and directed the petitioners to comply with the Order-in-Original, pay the redemption fine and abide by its terms. The ... Seeking directions to the Respondent to comply with the Order - denial of free allowance as admissible to the to the Noticee on account of various omission and commission - declaration of Noticee(s) as an 'ineligible passenger' for the purpose of N/N. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016(as amended) - Confiscation of Gold - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the deportation document clearly shows that the Petitioner No. 1 was deported on 15th January, 2025. The Order-in-Original is dated 31st January, 2025. Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 also appeared to have contacted the counsel, who had written a communication to the Customs Department, which is dated 27th June, 2025 - Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the Order-in-Original ought to be given effect to. Accordingly, the Petitioners shall pay the redemption fine, and comply with the terms and conditions of the Order-in-Original. The seized jewellery shall be released to the Petitioners. For the said purpose, the Petitioners shall appear before the Customs Authority on 10th November, 2025. In respect of the same, let the Petitioner contact the Office of Commissioner, Customs who shall assist the Petitioner with requisite procedure - If the Petitioners are stationed abroad, they shall appear virtually through an Authorized Representative, with a duly authorized letter. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Order-in-Original permitting redemption and re-export of seized jewellery should be given effect to despite delay and deportation of the passenger. 2. Whether the option to redeem confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act (including the 120-day limitation in Section 125(3)) is rendered void by the passage of time between the order and payment/acceptance. 3. Whether the Customs authority must release seized jewellery upon payment of the redemption fine and fulfilment of conditions in the Order-in-Original, including where the affected passenger is overseas and seeks release through an authorized representative or virtual appearance. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Effectiveness of Order-in-Original despite deportation and delay Legal framework: The Order-in-Original granted an option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act and allowed re-export upon payment of a specified redemption fine, subject to completion of legal formalities and regulatory clearances. Deportation is an independent administrative measure; detention/seizure and confiscation/redemption under the Customs Act proceed under statutory scheme. Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions or authorities were relied upon in the instant judgment; the Court proceeded on statutory construction and facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the timeline: deportation preceded the Order-in-Original; counsel for the passenger subsequently communicated seeking effect to the order. The Court treated deportation as not automatically nullifying the substantive relief granted by the customs order (redemption and re-export), particularly where the statutory remedy (redemption) remains available and the petitioners express willingness to comply with the order's terms. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An Order-in-Original granting redemption and re-export will be given effect to where the affected person complies with its terms, even if deportation has occurred prior to the order. Conclusions: The Court held the Order-in-Original ought to be given effect to and directed compliance with its terms notwithstanding the earlier deportation of the passenger. Issue 2 - Application of Section 125(3) (120-day limitation) and effect of delay Legal framework: Section 125 provides for an option to redeem confiscated goods on payment of a redemption fine; Section 125(3) provides that if the redemption fine is not paid within 120 days from the date when the option is given, the option shall become void. Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited or applied in respect of the 120-day limitation; the Court considered statutory language and factual equities. Interpretation and reasoning: The Respondent relied on Section 125(3) to contend that the option had lapsed. The Court noted the chronology: Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025; deportation dated 15.01.2025; communication from counsel dated 27.06.2025. Despite lapse of time, the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the Parties to comply with the Order-in-Original by paying the redemption fine and completing conditional formalities. The Court thus treated the availability of redemption as capable of being given effect through exercise of its equitable powers where petitioners promptly sought implementation and offered compliance despite delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The statutory 120-day limitation in Section 125(3) does not inevitably bar the Court from directing implementation of an Order-in-Original permitting redemption where the petitioner demonstrates willingness to comply and seeks relief from the Court; the Court may direct compliance notwithstanding lapse of the 120-day period in appropriate circumstances. (Note: This factual holding is grounded in the Court's exercise of discretion in the facts of the case.) Conclusions: The Court directed that the petitioners pay the redemption fine and comply with the Order-in-Original, ordering release of goods upon compliance, thereby effectively permitting redemption despite the elapsed 120-day period. Issue 3 - Conditions for release: payment, verification, re-export, and representation where passenger is abroad Legal framework: The Order-in-Original conditioned redemption on payment of the redemption fine, non-dispute of identity and valuation of the goods, completion of legal formalities and any regulatory clearances, and re-export. Customs rules and the Order prescribe verification of identity and fulfilment of procedural requirements prior to release. Precedent Treatment: No prior authorities were cited; the Court applied the terms of the Order-in-Original and standard administrative procedure. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court required the petitioners to appear before the Customs Authority on a specified date to effect redemption and release, or if abroad, to appear virtually through an authorized representative with a duly authorized letter. The Court directed the Customs official named in the order to assist with requisite procedure and mandated verification of credentials and identity before release. The Court's directions balance the statutory conditions with practicalities of foreign passengers and permit virtual/representative compliance subject to verification. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Release of seized goods under a redemption order is contingent upon strict compliance with the order's conditions (payment of fine, non-dispute of valuation/identity, regulatory clearances) and identity verification; where the affected person is abroad, authorized representation or virtual appearance with proper authorization suffices for compliance. Conclusions: The Court ordered that upon payment of the redemption fine and fulfillment of the Order-in-Original's conditions, and upon verification of identity/credentials, the seized jewellery shall be released. Virtual appearance or authorized representative is permitted where petitioners remain abroad, and Customs officials were directed to assist in the procedural formalities. Ancillary Observations and Directions 1. The Court treated deportation as not being determinative of the right to redemption under the customs order. 2. The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to enforce the administrative order and to direct cooperation by the Customs Authority to facilitate redemption and re-export upon compliance. 3. No judicial precedents were cited, followed, distinguished, or overruled; the decision rests on statutory interpretation of Sections 112/114AA/125 of the Customs Act as applied to the facts and the Court's discretion under Article 226.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
