TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, the matters are disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Since both the above Writ Petitions involve common issues, the same are taken up together for hearing and disposed off by way of the present common order. For the sake of ease, we refer to the factual matrix in Writ Petition (L) No. 37813 of 2025, as filed by 17 Petitioners. The Petitioners are stated to be jewellers and entities engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in gold jewellery, carrying on their business operations from various cities across India. 3. It is the Petitioners case that they had dispatched varying quantities of gold, in the form of gold bars, from their respective offices s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal dated 20th June 2025, the Petitioner made representations for release of the gold seized. However, the same was not acted upon. 7. The Department has filed an Appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 129D of the Customs Act 1962 (for short "the Act"), on 25th September 2025, challenging the Order-in-Original dated 20th June 2025. 8. The Petitioner therefore, filed the present Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus for release of the gold, which was directed not to be confiscated. In the midst of the above proceedings, which according to the Petitioners is their primary grievance in the present proceedings, is that the gold which was subsequently found not liable for confiscation vide the Order-in-Original dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rior intimation to the owner, though statutorily mandated, therefore, such sale of gold is illegal and in violation of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India as held by this Court in Leyla Mohmoodi (supra) and subsequently followed by this Court in case of Mohammad Shahad Choy Choo versus Union of India reported in 2026 SCConline Bom 571. He further submitted that the decision in Leyla Mohmoodi (supra) is accepted by the Department; b. He submits that since, the gold has been sold without prior intimation in terms of Section 150(1) of the Act, as well as the binding instructions issued by the Board, the Petitioners should be granted the market value of the gold as on today. He submits that even this issue is covered by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-Original, therefore, no relief can be granted at this stage. They also submit that if at all the Petitioners succeed, then they can be provided with the consideration which the Department received by selling off the gold in December 2021 and not the current fair market value. They further submitted that the decision in case of Leyla Mohmoodi (supra) may not be applicable as in that case, the release of gold was after finality was achieved in the matter, i.e. pursuant to a revisional order passed. However, in the present case, the issue of confiscation is still pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). 13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that we need not enter into all the arguments canvassed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before us. In the present Petition, the Petitioners are seeking to enforce the Order-in-Original of a Court/Forum of the first instance i.e. Joint Commissioner of Customs dated 20th June 2025. It is worth noting that Respondent No. 2 (Pr. Commissioner of Customs) has already reviewed the said order dated 20th June 2025, and has directed Respondent No. 3 to file an Appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 129D(2) of the Act which is pending. Hence, since this Appeal is pending, we are not inclined to deal with any arguments canvassed by the Petitioners, which they are free to raise before the Appellate Authority. 15. We are also not inclined to accept the argument of the Petitioners for the release of the value of the gold o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner (Appeals) to the Petitioners within 3 weeks of such a decision. This is irrespective of the right of the Respondents to file an appeal and to seek stay on such order. The Respondents cannot then seek for stay of release of the amount on the ground that a further Appeal is filed before the Tribunal or any other forum, and they would be bound to disburse the fair market value of the gold to the Petitioners as directed above, and which release would naturally be subject to any final order passed in the further Appeal. 18. In the event the Commissioner (Appeals) order visits the Petitioners with any adverse consequences of fine/penalty etc, then such an order shall be complied with by deducting such fines/penalties, and thereafter retu....