2024 (2) TMI 517 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of seized Gold - Smuggling - foreign marked gold bars - SCN did not consider the e-mail issued by the Petitioner informing Respondent Nos. 1 2 that it was the owner of the said gold - HELD THAT - The request made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is reasonable and, therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 2 would have to be directed to decide the representations made by the Petitioner within a period of six months from the date of intimation of this Order, without being influenced by the Order-in-Original dated 13th January, 2023. As requested by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, till a decision is taken in respect of the representations of the Petitioner, status-quo should be maintained in respect of the said gold. Further, in the event of the Petitioner succeeding in proving its case, the Respondents will have to be directed to restore to the Petitioner the said gold or equivalent amount of gold or to compensate the Petitioner by making payment of an amount equivalent to the market value of the said gold as on date. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the representations made by the Petitioner by its letters dated 19th June, 2019, 13th September, 2019, 19th December, 2019, 3rd January, 2020 and 24th October, 2020 and take a decision in respect of the same within a period of six months from the date of intimation of this Order, after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner, and without being influenced by the Order-in-Original dated 13th January, 2023 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash a Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice and grant a personal hearing regarding the confiscation of gold.

Case Details:
The Petitioner, a jeweler conducting business in multiple Indian cities, claimed ownership of 511.60 grams of Indian-marked gold purchased by them. They entrusted this gold to a logistics entity for transfer to another jeweler on a job work basis. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged smuggling of foreign marked gold bars by logistic companies, leading to the detention of 32.380 kgs of gold, including the Petitioner's gold. Despite the Petitioner's claims, the Respondents did not consider their ownership and issued a Show Cause Notice for confiscation without personal hearing or acknowledgment of the Petitioner's ownership.

The Petitioner repeatedly communicated their ownership of the gold to the Respondents through letters, but received no response or consideration. The Respondents passed an Order-in-Original confiscating the gold and imposing penalties, noting multiple ownership claims but refraining from making decisions on ownership. The Petitioner's representations were consistently ignored, leading to the current legal challenge seeking a fair consideration of their claims.

Judgment:
The court directed Respondent No. 1 to consider all representations made by the Petitioner within six months, providing a personal hearing and excluding influence from the previous Order-in-Original. Until a decision is made, the status quo regarding the gold's ownership is to be maintained. If the Petitioner's ownership is proven, the Respondents must return the gold or provide equivalent compensation based on the gold's market value. The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, issuing the necessary directives and disposing of the petition without costs.