2011 (8) TMI 605 - HC - Customs

Writ Petition - Gold, Electronic good & Indian currency seized from a NR at IGI Airport - Petitioner requested release of gold for re-export and demanded value of goods - Show cause issued for confiscation and penalty - Show cause replied by J.K. Srivastava, Advocate after that appealed filed before Commissioner and finally a revision application before government of India - petitioner submitted that he had not appointed J.K. Srivastava, no order of confiscation and revision received - Held That - A legal professional would not act, file and prosecute an appeal or revision without instructions in a matter which entails expenditure, time and effort. We do not find any merit in the said contentions. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods at the airport and subsequent legal proceedings.
2. Request for release of goods and monetary compensation.
3. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Appeals and revision applications filed by the petitioner.
5. Allegations of not receiving show cause notice and appointment of advocate.
6. Dispute over legal representation and receipt of orders.
7. Merit of the petitioner's contentions and court's decision.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian, had goods seized at the airport in 1997. He was later acquitted in 2010 after legal proceedings, but the judgment copy was not provided to the court.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the release of gold for re-export and demanded monetary compensation for other goods seized, including interest.

3. The Additional Commissioner of Customs informed the petitioner about the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, and the penalties imposed. Appeals and revision applications were filed but were unsuccessful.

4. The petitioner alleged not receiving show cause notices and denied appointing an advocate for legal representation. The court noted the petitioner's letters disputing the legal representation and receipt of orders.

5. The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions, stating that it was unlikely for an advocate to act without instructions. The petitioner's delay in raising objections and access to legal advice during prosecution were considered.

6. Due to the time gap, conduct of the petitioner, and lack of merit in the contentions, the court declined to issue a notice on the writ petition and dismissed it promptly.