2020 (2) TMI 1492 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - opportunity of hearing sought - petitioners had submitted the relevant documents like GST invoices, vouchers and according to them, they had complied with all statutory laws for transition of the business - HELD THAT - The writ petition is disposed off by issuing direction to the second respondent to take decision on Exts.P7 and P8 representations, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or duly constituted representative, after taking consideration of all the relevant documents, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues: Alleged seizure and confiscation of gold under Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal of the Kerala High Court pertains to a case involving the seizure of gold from a jewellery manufacturing unit. The first petitioner, a dealer of gold and gold ornaments, entrusted raw gold to the second petitioner, a goldsmith, for manufacturing gold ornaments. Subsequently, a search conducted by the Superintendent of Customs at the second petitioner's premises led to the recovery of a significant quantity of gold bars/pieces, alleged to be smuggled. Despite submissions of relevant documents like GST invoices and vouchers, the Superintendent did not take any decision on the release of the gold, prompting the petitioners to file representations (Exts.P7 and P8). The counsel for the petitioners sought a direction for the second respondent to decide on the representations after providing an opportunity for a hearing.

Upon analyzing the situation, the judge refrained from expressing any opinion on the alleged seizure and confiscation. However, considering the provisions of Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act, it was noted that seizure and confiscation should not have been carried out prima facie. The petitioners had maintained that they had complied with all statutory laws for their business transactions, supported by the submission of relevant documents. Consequently, the judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent to make a decision on Exts.P7 and P8 representations after granting an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioners or their representative. The direction emphasized the importance of considering all relevant documents and conducting the process in accordance with the law, with a stipulated timeline of one month for completion of the decision-making process from the date of receipt of the judgment's certified copy.