2025 (12) TMI 257 - HC - Customs

Detained gold bangles dispute sent to Commissioner Appeals; writ rejected due to factual issues, delayed appeal allowed

ROOVI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

HC declined to adjudicate the petitioners' claim for release of detained gold bangles under writ jurisdiction, holding that disputed questions of fact ... Seeking release of the goods, detained by the Respondent Department - no SCN was issued - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady but the gold is claimed by three ladies. The ownership of these bangles would have to be determined. These issues cannot be gone into in a Writ petition as these are disputed questions of fact. However, considering that no SCN has been issued and no hearing has also been granted, the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the impugned OIO dated 21st March, 2024 by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). If the appeal is filed by 15th January, 2026, the same shall be considered in accordance with law on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation - Appeal disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking release of detained gold jewellery is maintainable when an Order-in-Original directing absolute confiscation has already been passed. 1.2 Whether questions relating to ownership of detained gold jewellery and entitlement to import the same in baggage can be adjudicated in writ proceedings where foundational facts are disputed. 1.3 Appropriate relief and forum when the petitioner alleges absence of Show Cause Notice and hearing, but an Order-in-Original is on record. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Maintainability of writ petition and adjudication of disputed facts regarding ownership and import of gold in baggage Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The petition was founded on the premise that only a detention receipt had been issued for 7 gold bangles and no Show Cause Notice had been served, and thus release of goods was sought in writ jurisdiction. 2.2 The respondent, by counter affidavit, produced an Order-in-Original dated 21.05.2024 directing absolute confiscation of the detained gold, relying on provisions relating to import of gold in baggage, including Foreign Trade (Exemption from application of rules in certain cases) Order, 1993, Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, and Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017, and recording that the passenger was an 'ineligible passenger' and that the detained gold was treated as 'prohibited goods'. 2.3 The Court noted that the foundational facts pleaded in the petition were inconsistent with the material on record: the detention receipt was issued in the name of one lady while the claim was that the bangles belonged to three ladies, and the ownership of the bangles would have to be determined. 2.4 The Court held that such questions relating to ownership and entitlement, involving disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. Conclusions 2.5 The writ petition was not treated as an appropriate remedy for adjudicating ownership of the gold bangles or for testing the merits of the confiscation, in view of the disputed factual matrix and the existence of an Order-in-Original. Issue 3: Proper remedy and limitation in light of alleged lack of Show Cause Notice and hearing Interpretation and reasoning 3.1 The petitioner asserted that no Show Cause Notice had been issued and no hearing had been granted. The respondent, however, pointed out that an advocate had appeared for the petitioner before the adjudicating authority and that an Order-in-Original of confiscation had been passed. 3.2 Recognising that the petitioner's grievance pertained to the Order-in-Original and the process leading to it (including alleged absence of SCN and hearing), and that such issues are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. 3.3 To ensure that the petitioner is not prejudiced by lapse of time, the Court directed that if an appeal is filed by a specified date, it shall not be dismissed as time-barred and shall be decided on merits within a fixed period. Conclusions 3.4 The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the impugned Order-in-Original before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 3.5 If such appeal is filed by 15 January 2026, it shall be entertained without rejection on limitation grounds and disposed of on merits within four months, in accordance with law.