2017 (11) TMI 361 - HC - Customs

Correctness of Revision Application - case of petitioner is that if the gold is sold after obtaining orders from the Judicial Magistrate Court, the petitioner s interest could be affected and the Revision Application itself would become infructuous - Held that - It is not known as to whether the Revision Application has been registered and a number has been assigned to it. As the letter dated 03.05.2017 would intimate that the Revision Application has only be provisionally accepted. However, if the Revision Application is in order and has been entertained by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent may consider the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of communication regarding petition under Customs Act
2. Impact of selling seized goods on pending Revision Application
3. Direction for expeditious consideration of Revision Application

Issue 1: Quashing of communication regarding petition under Customs Act
The petitioner sought to quash a communication from the 4th respondent informing about a petition under Section 110(1A)(1B) and (1C) of the Customs Act, 1962 filed before the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner contended that a Revision Application was pending before the 3rd respondent, and selling the goods could affect their interest and render the Revision Application infructuous. The court noted the submission by the 4th respondent that no steps would be taken to sell the goods until the decision on the Revision Application.

Issue 2: Impact of selling seized goods on pending Revision Application
The petitioner expressed concerns that selling the seized goods before the Revision Application's decision could harm their interests. The court acknowledged the petitioner's apprehensions and directed the 4th respondent not to sell the gold weighing 1781 grams until the Revision Application's outcome. The petitioner's counsel urged the court to instruct the 3rd respondent to expedite the processing of the Revision Application.

Issue 3: Direction for expeditious consideration of Revision Application
The court observed uncertainty regarding the registration and status of the Revision Application, noting that it had been provisionally accepted. While acknowledging the need for prompt action, the court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the Revision Application expeditiously, ideally within four months from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing no costs were to be incurred, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.