TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposing penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is working in Malaysia and he had brought the subject gold jewellery during one of his visits to India. According to the petitioner, since he was lacking requisite foreign currency for the payment of the Customs duty for the subject gold jewellery, the respondents had detained the gold jewellery, by issuing a detention receipt dated 28.04.2024. He would also submit that the detention receipt was issued only to enable the petitioner to pay the assessed Customs duty payable for the subject gold jewellery. 3.The petitioner claims that he had also paid the Customs duty as assessed by the respondents on 02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the representation given by the petitioner to the respondents on 02.05.2024, requesting the second respondent to release the subject gold jewellery to the petitioner, since the petitioner has already paid the duty. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite paying the Customs duty, arbitrarily, the second respondent has passed the impugned order in original dated 03.06.2024, confiscating the gold jewellery and imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the petitioner. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has never issued any letter to the customs department waiving the necessity of the customs department to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for confiscating the subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order in original, the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity by affording a personal hearing to which he had duly participated in the same. 11.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order in original, the petitioner ought to have exercised the statutory appellate remedy available under the Customs Act. He would submit that instead of filing the statutory appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, which is not maintainable. 12.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd., Vs. Union of Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the issuance of show cause notice is mandatory. Discussion: 15.The following are the un-disputed facts: a) No show cause notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order in original, confiscating the petitioner's gold jewellery; b) In the detention receipt dated 28.04.2024 issued by the Customs Department to the petitioner, the said detention receipt discloses that the petitioner will have to pay the customs duty of Rs. 3,42,341/- and the detained gold jewellery was not released to the petitioner on account of the non-payment of the same by the petitioner due to non-availability of foreign currency with the petitioner; c) The respondents have placed on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order in original. 18.The petitioner categorically contends before this Court that he has not committed any violation under the Customs Act. According to the petitioner, only due to the reason that he did not have sufficient foreign currency in his hand for payment of the customs duty on his arrival at the Chennai Airport, he had to pay the same after four days from the date of his arrival and on payment of the same, the petitioner claims that he is entitled for return of the gold jewellery. The petitioner also contends that the detention order issued to him makes it clear that the gold jewellery was not detained on account of its non-declaration by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the contention of the respondents as rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... According to the respondents, it is a seizure order passed only in accordance with Section 110 of the Customs Act; b)Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, which require elaborate consideration, this Court is leaving it open for the respondents to decide as to whether a proper seizure order was passed under Section 110 of the Customs Act or not. This Court is also leaving it open for the respondents to decide the issue as to whether the goods were detained by the Customs Department only on account of the non-availability of adequate foreign currency with the petitioner for the payment of customs duty or for non-declaration of the subject gold jewellery by the petitioner on his arrival at Chennai Airport. 21.Since ....