2024 (4) TMI 249 - HC - Customs

Import of Baggage - opportunity to declare the contents of their baggage to the proper officer - Challenged the Order passed for Confiscation and detention - Period of limitation for presenting statutory appeals - HELD THAT - On examining the orders impugned herein I find that the dispute turns on questions of fact. Moreover it appears that the detentions and confiscation challenged herein relate to action taken against a group of about 148 persons. Therefore it is appropriate that the respective petitioner files a statutory appeal. Since these writ petitions were filed within the period of limitation the time taken in prosecuting these petitions is liable to be excluded for purposes of computing the period of limitation for presenting statutory appeals. Consequently these writ petitions are disposed of by granting leave to the respective petitioner to present statutory appeals. If such appeals are presented within a maximum period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of such appeals on merits without going into the question of limitation. This order will not stand in the way of the respondents proceeding with adjudication pursuant to the detention orders.

Summary

Issues involved: Detention orders, order of confiscation

Detention Orders:
The detention orders challenged in the writ petitions were based on intelligence received regarding 148 frequent fliers arriving from Dubai via Muscat. Customs authorities intercepted these passengers due to suspicions arising from the circuitous route taken by them, leading to the recovery of goods. The petitioners argued that they were not given an opportunity to declare the contents of their baggage to the proper officer as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. They expressed readiness to pay customs duty and sought interference with the impugned orders.

Order of Confiscation:
The senior standing counsel contended that the passengers were intercepted based on intelligence suggesting their involvement in a syndicate. He highlighted that one petitioner raised a dispute involving disputed questions of fact and should have utilized the statutory remedy available. The impugned orders, issued in November 2023, were challenged in November 2023. The court observed that the disputes revolved around factual issues and pertained to actions taken against a group of 148 individuals. It directed the petitioners to file statutory appeals within ten days, with the appellate authority instructed to consider the appeals on merit without delving into the question of limitation. The order did not prevent the respondents from proceeding with adjudication following the detention orders, and no costs were awarded.