2020 (11) TMI 687 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - gold chain - gold bangles - gold anklet - Reopening of adjudication proceedings - section 124 of Customs Act - HELD THAT - There is no force and merit in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The reference to Section 124 of the Customs Act in not issuing any notice in writing for confiscation or imposition of the penalty cannot be agitated after the lapse of three years. Alleged non-adherence to the provisions of Section 124 by issuing a separate notice before imposition of penalty and confiscation, cannot be raised for the first time in the writ petition, that too after a gap of three years. However, on going through the adjudication order of Ext. P3, the petitioner suffered a statement which was not found to be sufficient and was served with Ext. P2 summons to appear and explain along with the documents regarding the jewellery. In the absence of any challenge to the adjudication order for the last three years is a deemed acceptance, there is no provision for re-opening of the adjudication proceedings to attempting to circumvent appeal. The litigants cannot be permitted to agitate remedy of the issue with the purported cause of action by submitting an application for reopening - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order imposing penalty and confiscation of gold items under the Customs Act.
2. Request for reopening the adjudication order after a delay of three years.
3. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in challenging the order.
4. Deemed acceptance of adjudication order due to delay in challenging it.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the penalty and confiscation of gold items under the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed ownership of the seized jewelry and expressed willingness to pay the duty. A penalty of ?1 lakh was imposed against her. The petitioner sought to appeal the order but faced a delay due to the lawyer's inaction. The petitioner later applied to reopen the adjudication order, citing non-adherence to the Customs Act's provisions in issuing notices. The court noted that challenging the order after three years, without valid reasons, was not permissible.

2. The State opposed the petitioner's plea for reopening the adjudication order, arguing that the delay of three years indicated acceptance of the order. The State contended that the excuse of engaging a lawyer to challenge the order was an attempt to circumvent the delay issue. The State emphasized the absence of provisions in the Act for reopening adjudication proceedings after such a prolonged delay. The State urged the court to dismiss the writ petition based on the doctrine of delay and laches.

3. After hearing both parties, the court found no merit in the petitioner's argument. The court observed that the petitioner's failure to challenge the adjudication order for three years amounted to deemed acceptance. The court emphasized that attempting to reopen the proceedings after such a delay, without valid grounds, was not permissible. The court noted that the petitioner's submission of an application for reopening lacked sufficient cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling against the petitioner's request for reopening the adjudication order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision based on the legal principles involved.