TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024. The Petitioner also seeks issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to quantify the applicable duty so as to enable the Petitioner to deposit the same. 2. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Chennai. He was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, with twelve (12) gold bars weighing 1200 grams, which were detained by Respondents. 3. Ultimately, on 18.11.2022, an Order-in-Original was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, ordering confiscation of the aforesaid gold bars, while granting liberty to the Petitioner to redeem the confiscated gold bars upon payment of the applicable dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act spells out the legal effect of such 'confiscation'. Section 126(2) of the Act lends a further finality to such vesting. It requires the 'officer adjudging confiscation' to mandatorily "take and hold possession of the confiscated goods." Any connection that the owner/possessor. 21. The distinction sought to be drawn between confiscation of 'prohibited goods' and of 'other goods' is relevant only to the extent of the discretion in the adjudging officer to permit their redemption by payment of fine. Once there is a failure to pay the fine within the time stipulated, the consequence is the same whether the goods are 'prohibited goods' or 'other goods'. The transient nature of the confiscation ends and it becomes 'absolute'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." 13.14. It is well understood that the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate. Even if a provision of law is presumed to be misused and subjected to the abuse of the process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary as held in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 255 ITR 147 at pages 154 to 155 (SC); Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 at page 9 [SC]; Union of India v. Rajeev Kumar AIR (2003) SC 2917 at 2923. Courts cannot reframe ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consequence of the 'confiscation' becoming absolute and the confiscated goods vesting absolutely in the central government inevitably has to follow in terms of Section 126 of the Act. The consequence is the same whether the goods are 'prohibited goods' or other goods'. (b) Sections 125 and 126 of the Act form one continuous scheme and are not to be read disjunctively. Once the vesting of the goods in the government is absolute, it would be inconsistent with the character of that vesting to contend that the Central Government can only recover through the sale of such goods the duty, penalty and interest and should return the excess to the owner/possessor of the goods. (c) Therefore, this Court is unable to concur with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith aforesaid Order-in-Original and the failure is on the part of the Respondents. The Respondents never took trouble to communicate to the Petitioner that the applicable duty, on quantification, can be paid later on, but the Petitioner should pay the redemption fine along with penalty. 12. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner had approached the Respondents within the prescribed period and that the applicable duty was not quantified despite his request, the failure to exercise the option of redemption within the stipulated period cannot, in the facts of the present case, be attributed solely to the Petitioner. The decision in Gillette India Ltd. (supra), therefore, does not preclude the relief sought in the present Petition. ....