2023 (1) TMI 949 - HC - Customs

Illegal smuggling of goods - Seeking grant of Injunction restraining the Respondents, their Agents, Servants and Subordinates from acting and/or taking any action of any nature whatsoever, pursuant to or in furtherance of the Impugned order - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench also considered the contention of the Petitioners therein of entertaining the Petition in writ jurisdiction in light of the grievance of non-granting of cross-examination. After considering this grievance, the Division Bench opined that an Appeal was maintainable and passed necessary orders regarding the filing of an appeal and pre-deposit as stated above. To maintain consistency, since this Court has taken a particular view in the case of other noticees with similar grievance, we are inclined to dispose off the Writ Petition with the same reasoning as in the order dated 6 June 2019. The Writ Petition is disposed off directing that the course of action indicated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order dated 6 June 2019 would apply to the case of the Petitioner as well.

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of smuggling gold bars.
2. Seizure of gold bars and related items.
3. Imposition of penalties on various individuals.
4. Preliminary objection of maintainability of the Petition.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
7. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Customs.
8. Non-granting of cross-examination.
9. Consistency with previous judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Smuggling Gold Bars:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received specific intelligence indicating that two passengers, traveling from Kolkata to Mumbai, were carrying smuggled gold bars covered by bogus documents. Acting on this intelligence, the passengers were intercepted, and the gold bars were seized under the belief that they were smuggled into India.

2. Seizure of Gold Bars and Related Items:
Upon interception, the passengers were found carrying six gold bars each, along with various documents and electronic devices. The gold bars, weighing a total of 12 kg and valued at Rs. 3.17 crores, were seized under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the reasonable belief of smuggling. The seized items included authorisation letters, stock issue memos, boarding passes, baggage tags, and mobile phones.

3. Imposition of Penalties on Various Individuals:
The impugned order imposed penalties on multiple individuals and entities, including the petitioner, for their involvement in the smuggling network. The penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Preliminary Objection of Maintainability of the Petition:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that a statutory appeal against the impugned order was available. The petitioner contended that the appeal was unnecessary due to gross violations of natural justice, specifically the denial of cross-examination.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of the individuals whose statements were used against the petitioner. This issue was a significant point of contention in the case.

6. Existence of an Alternative Statutory Remedy:
The court noted that an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was available. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting this statutory remedy before seeking relief through a writ petition.

7. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Customs:
The petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, citing a circular that limited the monetary jurisdiction of different adjudicating authorities. However, the court clarified that the circular applied to proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994, not the Customs Act, 1962.

8. Non-granting of Cross-Examination:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the denial of cross-examination but reiterated that this issue could be addressed through the statutory appeal process. The court emphasized that the appeal would provide an opportunity to challenge the merits of the impugned order, including the non-granting of cross-examination.

9. Consistency with Previous Judgments:
The court referred to a previous judgment involving similar grievances, where the Division Bench had directed the petitioners to file an appeal and comply with statutory requirements, including pre-deposit. To maintain consistency, the court adopted the same reasoning and directed the petitioner to follow the course of action indicated in the previous judgment.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to follow the course of action outlined in the previous judgment, including filing an appeal within three weeks and complying with statutory requirements. The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy and the importance of exhausting it before seeking relief through a writ petition.

← Previous Next →