2025 (11) TMI 1127 - HC - Customs

Implementation of order upholding confiscation, fines and penalties under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016

Firoj Khan Versus Addl. Commissioner Of Custom

HC permitted implementation of the impugned order within one month and disposed of the petition. The court declined to delve into cryptic passport-related ... Denial of duty free allowance - failure to the declared detained goods to the Proper Officer at RedChannel as well to the Customs Officer at Green Channel who intercepted him and recovered the detained goods - eligible Passenger for the purpose of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) read with Baggage Rules, 2016 (as amended) - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- The facts arising in this case in respect of the passport of the Petitioner are quite cryptic and therefore this Court is not going into the said issue. The impugned order dated 11th April, 2025 is permitted to be implemented within a period of one month - Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Order-in-Original confiscating detained gold jewellery and offering redemption on payment of fine and duties (under Sections 111, 112 and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962) is susceptible to challenge on grounds raised in the petition. 2. Whether the procedural requirement of hearing prior to passing the impugned order was complied with and, if not, what remedy/follow-up is appropriate. 3. Whether the passenger is correctly classified as an 'eligible Passenger' for the purpose of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs read with the Baggage Rules, 2016, in light of non-declaration of detained goods. 4. Relief appropriate where detained goods have been ordered confiscated but redemption has been offered and the petitioner is now present in India - specifically, whether implementation of the impugned order should be permitted and on what timeline and conditions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of confiscation and redemption order under Sections 111, 112 and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 Legal framework: Sections 111 (offences relating to prohibited and restricted goods and non-declaration), 112 (penalties for unlawful importation and concealment), and Section 125(3) (redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine and duty) of the Customs Act, 1962; Notification No. 50/2017-Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016 governing passenger baggage allowances and eligibility. Precedent treatment: No prior authorities were invoked or considered in the judgment; therefore no precedents were followed, distinguished or overruled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal/Court recorded the Order-in-Original which both declared confiscation under specified sections and concurrently provided an option of redemption on payment of the specified fine and applicable customs duty (with identity and valuation not to be disputed if redemption accepted). The Court did not re-examine the factual basis for confiscation (i.e., quantities, purity, value) nor purport to set aside the substantive findings of customs; instead, having considered procedural aspects and the petitioner's changed circumstances, the Court directed implementation of the impugned order within a specified timeline. Ratio vs. Obiter: The mandatory legal effect recognized is that an order of confiscation may coexist with an option for redemption under Section 125(3); the Court's direction to implement the order is ratio in respect of remedial directions given in the particular factual matrix. Observations not touching on interpretation of statutory guilt or challenge to valuation are obiter. Conclusions: The Court upheld the propriety of execution of the impugned order insofar as implementation/ redemption is concerned and directed compliance with the order on specified terms and timelines; it did not set aside the confiscation or disturb the substantive determination in the impugned order. Issue 2 - Procedural compliance: hearing prior to passing the impugned order Legal framework: Principles of natural justice requiring opportunity of hearing before adverse administrative action; statutory scheme of Customs Act providing for adjudication and rights of representation during proceedings. Precedent treatment: No precedents were cited or relied upon in the reasons delivered; the Court confined itself to the recorded submissions about attendance and representations. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner contended absence of hearing; the Customs Department asserted that the petitioner had appeared and filed two representations. The record showed an authorised representative had been involved and passport custody issues were presented as contested facts. The Court characterized the passport facts as 'cryptic' and expressly declined to adjudicate that factual controversy in detail. Given the subsequent return of the passport and the petitioner's current residence in India, the Court elected not to reopen or nullify the impugned order on procedural grounds but to implement it belatedly. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's practical determination to allow implementation rather than remitting for fresh hearing is ratio as applied to these facts (where procedural irregularity was alleged but facts remained contested and the petitioner is available). The refusal to examine the passport/representative dispute is obiter to the extent it avoids a general pronouncement on consequences of procedural non-compliance. Conclusions: Although a contention of denial of hearing was raised, the Court did not find it necessary to set aside the impugned order for lack of hearing; instead it directed implementation, implicitly treating the procedural dispute as insufficient to forestall execution in the present circumstances. Issue 3 - Eligibility as 'eligible Passenger' under baggage rules following non-declaration Legal framework: Notification No. 50/2017-Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016 govern who constitutes an eligible passenger and the concessions/allowances available; non-declaration to customs can affect admissibility of allowances and attract consequences under Customs Act. Precedent treatment: None cited. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order itself records a denial of any free allowance for failure to declare the detained goods and yet simultaneously declares the passenger to be an 'eligible Passenger' for purposes of the notification and rules. The Court did not challenge the internal consistency of that administrative determination nor elaborate legally on the effect of declaring eligibility while denying allowance; it accepted the impugned order as the operative instrument for implementation. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's acceptance of the impugned order as the basis for enforcement is ratio for the purpose of directing compliance; any deeper analysis of the legal interplay between 'eligible Passenger' status and denial of allowance remains obiter. Conclusions: The Order-in-Original's classifications stand for implementation; the Court did not disturb the administrative characterisation and deferred detailed legal examination of that interplay. Issue 4 - Appropriate relief and timeline for implementation when petitioner is available in India Legal framework: Powers of the High Court to grant reliefs and to pass directions for implementation of administrative orders; Section 125(3) enabling redemption within stipulated period; procedural fairness principles in granting time to comply. Precedent treatment: None referenced. Interpretation and reasoning: Having regard to the petitioner's return to India and the resolution of the passport custody issue, the Court concluded that the suitable course was to permit implementation of the impugned order. The Court set concrete deadlines: implementation within one month, payment of requisite charges by a fixed date, appearance before Customs on a specified date to obtain redemption, and provided contact details of a designated Customs official to facilitate compliance. The Court declined to entertain further orders and disposed of the petition accordingly. Ratio vs. Obiter: The direction to implement the impugned order within defined timelines and the ancillary facilitation constitute the operative ratio of the decision as applied to the facts. Any remarks about the cryptic nature of passport facts and refusal to probe them further are obiter. Conclusions: The Court directed belated implementation of the impugned order with specified timeframes and conditions for payment and physical appearance; the petition was disposed of without further substantive interference with the order-in-original. Cross-references and final operative determination The Court's decision is procedural and remedial in nature: it neither annulled nor modified the adjudicatory findings of confiscation, penalty and classification recorded in the impugned order, but directed its implementation and prescribed timelines and facilitation; allegations of procedural infirmity (denial of hearing/passport custody) were noted but not adjudicated so as to alter the remedial direction. The operative relief is implementation of the impugned order with payment and appearance requirements specified.