9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 384 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Direction to respondent to release the Gold ornaments inappropriately seized by the respondent officials - Whether the Baggage Rules 2016 are ultra vires the Customs Act 1962 particularly concerning the inclusion of articles carried on the person ? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The real fact is that all the jewels were worn by the petitioners at the time of arrival. But the same not been stated in the confiscation notice which was issued based on the falsely created Mahazar wherein it was stated as if it was concealed under the sleeves and brought illegally by the petitioner. Therefore the falsification of the records such as preparation of the Mahazar stands confirmed by virtue of reflecting the false informations in the confiscation orders. Based on their own statement they had clearly proved that the Mahazar was prepared with false information in order to fix the petitioners into the case for ulterior notice for the reasons better known to them. This Court suspects that the officials have orchestrated this entire episode in order to divert the attention of the others for the benefit of somebody else. When the provision of the Rule is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act only the provision of the Act will prevail over the Rules. Thus the word carried on the person up to Rs. 50, 000/- is clearly beyond the scope of the Act and it cannot be given any effect since it is contrary to the provisions of the Statute. Thus it has to be construed only for the articles which have not been mentioned in Annexure-1 and carried in the accompanied baggage of a passenger. In such case the application of Baggage Rules 2016 would not arise. Thus the jewelery worn by the passenger will not fall within the provisions of the Baggage Rules 2016. The Doctrine of ultra vires states that the Rule making body must function within the purview of the Rule making authority conferred on it by the parent Act. As the body of making rules or regulations there is no inherent power of its own to make rules but such power arise only from the Statute and hence it must necessarily function within the purview of the Statute - In the present case the Rule making body had made the Baggage Rules as if they are having inherent power of its own to make rules beyond the scope of the Statutes and they have incorporated the word carried on the person . Since this Court has held that the provision as carried on the person of the Baggage Rules 2016 is ultra vires the detention of gold under the Baggage Rules 2016 in the present case would not apply unless and otherwise if it is secreted in person for which the proceedings shall be initiated under Section 101 of the Customs Act 1962 however that is not the present case except to the extent of false charges framed by the officials against the petitioner. Conclusion - i) The confiscation orders were passed without issuing the show cause notice; ii) No proper opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of confiscation orders; iii) Since the Mahazar was prepared with false information to foist a false case against the petitioners the confiscation orders were also passed as an ex parte order with the false information available in the said Mahazar. iv) The manner in which the jewellery was brought by the petitioners as stated in the Mahazar is that it was brought under the sleeve however in the affidavit it was clearly stated that the petitioners worn the jewellery at the time of arrival. Due to the said contradiction of the respondent it is clear that there was a change in the stand of the respondents with regard to the manner in which the gold was carried by the petitioners from proceedings to proceedings. This writ petition is allowed and the confiscation orders dated 24.04.2024 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the goods of the petitioners within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Legality of the Seizure under the Customs Act and Baggage Rules
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
3. Jurisdiction and Authority of Customs Officials
SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limits in rule-making and the necessity of observing natural justice principles in administrative actions.
|
