2022 (6) TMI 1265 - HC - Customs

Import of Gold - bonafide baggage or not - cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court or not - respondents submits that the writ petition is infructuous inasmuch as the petitioner has accepted the order of the first respondent and has paid the redemption fine and penalty for re-export of the imported goods - HELD THAT - In KUSUM INGOTS ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority . No part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, on this count alone this Court is liable to be dismissed. That apart, the petitioner has also re-exported the crude gold which was ordered to be confiscated and subsequently released pursuant to the impugned order. Therefore, on this count also there is no merits in the present writ petition - That apart, the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016. The petitioner was duty bound to declare under provision of Baggage Rules, 2016 read with Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013. Sub-clause (b) to proviso Rule 3 read with annexure 1 of the Baggage Rules. 2016, gold or silver ornaments in any other form cannot be allowed to be cleared duty free as bonafide baggage if they exceeded Rs.15,000/-. Gold or silver in any other form are not bonafide baggage. There are no infirmity in the order of the first respondent Principal Commissioner Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India, passed in his capacity as the Revisional Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962; Confiscation of gold chains; Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; Alleged smuggling and concealment of gold; Validity of statements obtained under coercion; Compliance with Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The order pertained to the confiscation of three gold chains weighing 599.12 grams, valued at Rs.14,90,730, and the imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had initially faced an adverse order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, which confiscated the gold chains and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) modified the order, allowing for re-export upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs.6,00,000. The penalty, however, was upheld.

The petitioner contended that there was no smuggling or concealment involved and that the penalty was unjustified. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the gold chains legally and declared them appropriately. The petitioner argued that statements obtained under coercion should not be relied upon to allege concealment. The petitioner cited legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing compliance with import laws.

The respondents argued that the writ petition was infructuous as the petitioner had accepted the order by paying the redemption fine and penalty. They contended that the jurisdiction for challenging the order lay with the High Court of Bombay or Kerala High Court, not the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The respondents highlighted the petitioner's violation of Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016, regarding declaration of gold ornaments exceeding a certain value.

The judge, after considering arguments from both sides, upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary, finding no infirmity in the decision. The judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, the judge noted the petitioner's failure to comply with Customs and Baggage Rules, 2016, and attempt to evade duty, supporting the decision to confiscate the gold chains and impose the penalty. The dismissal of the petition was based on these observations, with no costs awarded.