TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements and representations before the Customs authorities. 2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original No. 1638/003806/17.02.2024/WH/2024-25 dated 14.06.2024 [the ['Impugned OIO'], whereby two gold bars weighing 233 grams and valued at Rs. 13,07,412/- were ordered to be absolutely confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Act. The Petitioner also seeks release of the said gold bars and a direction that no detention/warehouse charges be recovered from him. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner, an Indian national holding Passport No. 87431589, arrived at Terminal-3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 17.02.2024 by Flight No. XY-329. He arrived from Riyadh and, according to the record, had opted for the Green Channel. 5. Upon interception and examination by the Customs authorities, two gold bars weighing 233 grams were recovered from the Petitioner. The goods were detained vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/17.02.2024/003806 dated 17.02.2024. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the applicable notification since his stay abroad was less than six months. 10. The adjudicating authority further considered the applicable provisions of the Baggage Rules, 2016, the Foreign Trade Policy and Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017, as amended. It was concluded that the gold bars were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Act. The adjudicating authority also considered the question of redemption under Section 125 of the Act and declined to offer an option for redemption of the confiscated gold on payment of redemption fine. A penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- was also imposed upon the Petitioner under Section 112 of the Act. 11. The Impugned OIO expressly records that the Petitioner had requested waiver of Show Cause Notice and personal hearing vide his letter dated 22.04.2024 and that, after accepting the said request, the adjudicating authority proceeded to adjudicate the matter. 12. The Petitioner states that the Impugned OIO was never served upon him. According to him, he made enquiries regarding the detained gold and, through his counsel, addressed a letter dated 05.02.2026 to the Customs authorities seeking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Show Cause Notice, the acceptance of such request by the Department, or effective communication to him of the grounds and material relied upon for confiscation and imposition of penalty. It was thus contended that the purported oral Show Cause Notice cannot cure the statutory violation. 14.5. On the question of maintainability, it was submitted that the availability of a statutory appeal does not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where there is a violation of principles of natural justice or where the challenge raises a pure question of law. Reliance was placed on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer and the settled exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. It was contended that the present case concerns an alleged violation of mandatory statutory provisions and, therefore, the decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. does not warrant dismissal of the Petition. 14.6. Learned counsel also disputed the Respondent's contention that the Petition is barred by delay and laches. It was submitted that the Impugned OIO was never served upon the Petitioner and that the Department has produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonal hearing and that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received. It is, therefore, submitted that the requirements of Sections 110 and 124 of the Act stood duly complied with. 15.5. It was also submitted that the allegations of coercion, alteration or forced signatures are bald and unsupported by any contemporaneous material. Reliance was placed upon Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India (1997) 89 ELT 646 (SC), to contend that a voluntary statement made under Section 108 of the Act constitutes an admission and can be relied upon, particularly when the same has not been retracted. 15.6. It was accordingly submitted that the Impugned OIO was passed after due consideration of the material on record and that the Petitioner, having failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed period, cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance was placed upon Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (2020) 36 G.S.T.L. 305, to contend that the availability of an alternative remedy and the expiry of the statutory period of limitation constitute sufficient grounds for declining interference under Art....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statutory scheme, particularly the legislative prescription concerning limitation. 22. Significantly, the Supreme Court observed that a writ petition may, in an appropriate case, be entertained where an order is challenged before expiry of the statutory appellate period on grounds such as want or excess of jurisdiction or flagrant disregard of law and procedure or violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Court cautioned that once the maximum statutory period for availing the appellate remedy has expired, the High Court cannot, as a matter of course, entertain a writ petition so as to circumvent the statutory scheme. 23. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks to bring his case within the exception of violation of principles of natural justice. The question, therefore, is whether the record discloses such a patent violation as would justify this Court in overlooking both the statutory appellate remedy and the substantial delay in approaching this Court. 24. In our view, the answer must be in the negative. 25. The record placed before this Court does not present a case where the Petitioner was wholly unaware of the proceedings concerning the seized gold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d held that there was no provision under the Act for such waiver. 31. In the present case, by contrast, the Respondent's case is not founded merely upon a purported waiver. The record also contains the Petitioner's own written acknowledgment that an oral Show Cause Notice had been received. Consequently, the question whether the statutory requirements were complied with cannot be answered merely by mechanically applying the ratio of Shubhangi Gupta (supra). 32. This Court is, however, not required to finally pronounce upon each of the disputed factual assertions concerning the manner in which the statement dated 17.02.2024 was recorded, whether the Petitioner fully understood each part thereof, or whether there was any coercion or pressure in obtaining his signatures. Such disputed questions, particularly in proceedings seeking examination of the legality of an adjudication order, are ordinarily matters which can appropriately be considered by the statutory appellate authority. 33. The Petitioner's allegation that he was compelled to sign pre-typed documents or blank papers is also unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or retraction. More importantly, the subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities undoubtedly possessed jurisdiction to examine the import of gold, determine whether the statutory requirements had been complied with, adjudicate the question of confiscation and impose penalty in accordance with law. 40. The Petitioner's grievance essentially concerns the manner in which that jurisdiction was exercised. He disputes the legal consequences flowing from the statement dated 17.02.2024, the communication dated 22.04.2024, the alleged oral Show Cause Notice and the absence of a separate personal hearing. These are matters which can be examined by the appellate authority within the statutory framework. 41. The distinction between absence of jurisdiction and an alleged erroneous exercise of jurisdiction is material in the present context. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot ordinarily be invoked merely to bypass the appellate mechanism where the grievance concerns the correctness or procedural regularity of an order passed by an authority having jurisdiction over the subject matter. 42. The Petitioner's reliance upon the principle that when a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner, cannot al....