2018 (10) TMI 1943 - HC - Customs

Seeking return of seized goods - one gold chain and two gold bangles - prohibited goods or not - initiation of appropriate action in accordance with Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Admittedly the authorities have not proceeded with the enquiry in this regard. In the event the respondent is found guilty it is always open to the authorities to proceed in the manner known to law. Though in the writ petition quashing of the seizure order was sought the learned single Judge has only directed the return of the gold seized. It is for the Department to proceed with the show cause notice and any reply filed by the respondent to be considered. When it is open to the authorities to proceed in the manner known to law the appeal filed by them is unwarranted and the same does not merit any consideration and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold items by customs authorities.
2. Applicability of Baggage Rules 2016.
3. Duty payment and release of seized items.
4. Allegations of smuggling and violation of customs laws.
5. Legal validity of the seizure order and subsequent court directions.

Seizure of Gold Items by Customs Authorities:
The case involved a writ petition filed by the respondent to quash the seizure order made by the customs authorities regarding one gold chain and two gold bangles. The respondent sought the return of the seized items covered by the order dated 29.01.2018.

Applicability of Baggage Rules 2016:
The appellants argued that the respondent, who had stayed overseas for less than six months, was not entitled to carry the amount of gold seized. They claimed the respondent attempted to smuggle unfinished gold items and violated the Baggage Rules 2016 by carrying gold exceeding the permissible limits.

Duty Payment and Release of Seized Items:
The learned single Judge directed the respondent to deposit 50% of the duty for the seized items' value, following a previous order. The appellants were instructed to release the items upon the deposit being made. However, the appellants challenged this order through the writ appeal.

Allegations of Smuggling and Violation of Customs Laws:
The appellants contended that the respondent's actions amounted to smuggling, as she carried gold exceeding the allowed limits and attempted to exit through the green channel without declaring the items. They highlighted the violation of Baggage Rules and Customs Act provisions.

Legal Validity of Seizure Order and Court Directions:
The respondent's counsel argued that the court order only directed the return of the seized gold items, while the customs authorities were supposed to continue proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The respondent's compliance with the order did not absolve her from potential legal actions, and the authorities were urged to follow due process.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the customs authorities was dismissed, emphasizing that the authorities could proceed with the necessary legal actions despite the return of the seized gold items. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and legal procedures in customs enforcement matters.