2010 (10) TMI 6 - HC - Customs

Court upholds passport seizure under Customs Act, denies compensation. Confiscation orders affirmed.

Okwy Shedrack Akpuba C/o. Versus Union of India

The court upheld the seizure of the passport, citing justification under the Customs Act and denied compensation to the petitioner. Regarding the ... Export of medicines – confiscation - in violation of Section 113(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act – detention of foreign national for illegal export – source of foreign exchange held by the foreign exchange leaving India – Held that: - source of funding of the Petitioner cannot be said to be legal and, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the confiscation of the goods is illegal cannot be accepted. - , merely because a wrong section is quoted would not make the order illegal as the power of confiscation in the instant case can be traced to clause (e) of Section 113 of the Customs Act. - , the charge against the Petitioner of illegal exportation has been brought home and taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner had purchased the goods out of funds which have not been accounted for Issues Involved:1. Seizure of Passport2. Challenge to the Orders Passed by the AuthoritiesIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:A) Seizure of Passport:- Illegal Retention of Passport: The petitioner argued that the passport was withheld illegally by the customs authorities without following due process, which caused undue suffering. The petitioner claimed that the passport was not relevant for the investigation and that no proper procedure for its retention was followed. The petitioner sought compensation for this alleged illegal act.- Respondents' Justification: The respondents argued that the passport was retained because the petitioner had visited India multiple times, and the investigation regarding the confiscated medicines was ongoing. They claimed that retaining the passport was necessary to ensure the petitioner did not abscond and frustrate the investigation. The respondents maintained that proper records were kept regarding the retention of the passport.- Court's Consideration: The court found that the retention of the passport was justified under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, which allows the seizure of documents relevant to any proceedings under the Act. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise the issue of passport retention before any of the adjudicating authorities and only sought compensation after the process was complete. The court concluded that the action of the authorities in retaining the passport was justified, and the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation.B) Challenge to the Orders:- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as no show cause notice was issued before the confiscation of goods. The petitioner argued that the authorities were obligated to issue a show cause notice and relied on certain circulars and judgments to support this claim.- Respondents' Defense: The respondents argued that the petitioner had waived the show cause notice, and therefore, the proceedings were not in violation of natural justice. They contended that the circulars relied upon by the petitioner were for internal guidance and did not preclude the waiver of a show cause notice. The respondents also argued that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase and export the medicines as personal baggage without proper declaration and proof of legal procurement.- Court's Consideration: The court found that the petitioner had indeed waived the show cause notice, as recorded in the order dated 30th April 2008. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise any grievance regarding the waiver of the show cause notice before the appellate and revisional authorities. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the petitioner was heard at every stage of the proceedings.- Legality of Confiscation: The court examined the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and the Customs Act. The court found that the petitioner did not declare any foreign currency on arrival in India on 14th April 2008 and had converted foreign currency into Indian Rupees through unauthorized channels. The court concluded that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for exporting goods as personal baggage under the circular dated 1st March 1995, which required proper proof of procurement against payment in foreign exchange.- Conclusion: The court held that the confiscation of goods was justified as the petitioner failed to establish the legal procurement and proper declaration of the goods. The court dismissed the petition, confirming the orders passed by the authorities and rejecting the petitioner's claims for compensation.Final Judgment:The court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the orders of confiscation and rejecting the petitioner's claims for compensation, with no order as to costs.