2024 (2) TMI 684 - HC - Customs

Seizure of Gold - Ownership of gold - it is claimed that the said confiscation 32.380 kgs of gold included the said gold of the Petitioner - 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 letters dated 21st June, 2019 and 11th April, 2023 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 legality of a Show Cause Notice dated 12/12/2019 and an Order-in-Original dated 13/1/2023 related to the confiscation of 490.95 grams of gold, ownership disputes, and the failure to consider representations made by the Petitioner.

Confiscation of Gold:
The Petitioner, a jeweler, claimed ownership of 490.95 grams of gold and entrusted it to a logistics company for transport. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) detained 32.380 kgs of gold, including the Petitioner's gold, alleging smuggling activities by logistic companies. The Petitioner's ownership claim was not considered, and the DRI issued a Show Cause Notice for confiscation without involving the Petitioner or acknowledging their ownership.

Ownership Dispute:
Despite the Petitioner's assertions of ownership and providing relevant documents, the DRI did not recognize their claim. The DRI's Order-in-Original dated 13th January, 2023, confiscated the gold without addressing the ownership claims made by various parties, including the Petitioner. The Petitioner's request for an amendment to the order to recognize their ownership was also rejected.

Court Decision and Directions:
The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to reconsider the Petitioner's representations within six months, giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner and without being influenced by the previous order. Until a decision is reached, the status quo regarding the gold should be maintained. If the Petitioner's ownership is proven, the Respondents must return the gold or provide an equivalent amount or compensate the Petitioner based on the market value. The Court made the ruling absolute in these terms, disposing of the petition with no costs imposed.