2024 (12) TMI 1082 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of revision applications filed by each of these petitioners against orders made by the Commissioner (Appeals) - confiscation of Gold bars and cash - petitioners were not adequately given an opportunity to cross-examine - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioners have not made out any case for perversity. The findings are well supported by material on record. In any event, extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be equated to the appellate jurisdiction. The material on record is sufficient to sustain the adverse findings concurrently recorded by the three authorities. The allegation about the violation of natural justice is also not made out. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioners and only after those findings of fact had been recorded. Accordingly, there is no case made to interfere with the impugned order based on the alleged violation of natural justice. All the authorities have examined the material on record fairly and reasonably. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioners. The three authorities' findings of fact indicate a conspiracy to smuggle gold from Dubai. There were contradictions in the stances raised by the petitioners. From the circumstances, it is apparent that none of the petitioners had no intention to declare the gold in their possession to the Customs authorities. They attempted to evade the law and smuggle this gold. There are certain observations about the complicity of the airline staff. However, it is refrained from taking cognisance of such observations because, even independent of such observations, it is satisfied that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order - Accordingly, all these petitions are liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed without any orders for costs.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to common judgment under the Customs Act involving confiscation of gold bars, cash amount, and penalties; Allegation of violation of natural justice; Allegation of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a challenge to a common judgment under the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the confiscation of 36 gold bars, a cash amount, and penalties. The petitioners contested the confiscation, claiming that the authorities did not adequately consider an invoice produced by one of the petitioners, establishing ownership of the gold bars. They also alleged a violation of natural justice, arguing that they were not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Furthermore, they claimed that the impugned action was disproportionate and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that the orders were based on factual material and unless perversity or lack of evidence was demonstrated, there was no basis for interference. The petitioners failed to establish perversity in the findings, and the allegations of natural justice violation were deemed unsubstantiated. The court emphasized that the material on record supported the adverse findings made by the authorities, and no grounds for interference were presented.

Regarding the ownership of the gold bars, it was highlighted that the carrier did not have the invoice at the time of seizure, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the ownership claim. The court found that the impugned action was warranted based on the circumstances. The judgment also detailed the modus operandi of smuggling involving the petitioners, leading to the conclusion that the confiscation was justified.

The court upheld the revisional authority's observations, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the need for deterrence against smuggling activities. It was noted that the petitioners attempted to evade customs duties through an innovative smuggling plan. The court found no intention to declare the gold bars to customs authorities and upheld the impugned order based on the findings of fact.

In conclusion, the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, dismissing the petitions without costs. The actions of the respondents were deemed proportionate, considering the attempts to misuse the facilitation process and evade the law. The court upheld the decisions of the authorities, emphasizing the lack of perversity in the concurrent fact findings.