2025 (3) TMI 136 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of Gold jewellery - Baggage rules - despite repeated representations petitioner did not receive any communication regarding show cause notices or orders against him - HELD THAT - The present petition being a writ petition under Article 226 non-disclosure of relevant facts would go to the root of the matter. The Supreme Court in Shri K Jayaram Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority 2021 (12) TMI 1439 - SUPREME COURT has held that non-disclosure of past present litigations concerning dispute amounts to suppression of material facts which would disentitle a litigant from discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus a Petitioner who approaches the Court with unclean hands by suppressing litigation and his involvement therein is disqualified from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. On a query from the Court as to why the copy of the authority letter and the fact that the authorized representative had received the order was not stated in the petition it is submitted that the authority letter has been cancelled however no copy is being placed on record. Also no convincting answer is forthcoming - The receipt of the Order in Original by the said authorised representative has been placed on record by the Respondent. A perusal of the same would show that the Petitioner had complete knowledge of the said order and that he has failed to avail of his remedies in accordance with law. Since the order has itself permitted the Petitioner to redeem the goods subject to the payment of a fine of Rs. 58, 000/- and a penalty of Rs. 47, 000/- let the Petitioner deposit the same with the Customs Department within a period of four weeks from the date of release of this order. Conclusion - Petitioner had complete knowledge of the order and that he has failed to avail of his remedies in accordance with law. The deposit of the fine and penalty for the release of the goods ordered. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Delhi High Court heard a case involving an Uzbekistan national who arrived in India as a tourist and had gold jewelry detained by the Customs Department at Indira Gandhi International Airport. The Petitioner claimed that despite repeated representations, he did not receive any communication regarding show cause notices or orders against him. The Customs Department issued an Order in Original permitting the redemption of the goods upon payment of a fine and penalty. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner concealed material facts, including appointing an authorized representative who received the order on his behalf. The Court found that the Petitioner failed to disclose all relevant facts, citing a Supreme Court case emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Petitioner had complete knowledge of the order and had not availed himself of legal remedies. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay the imposed fine and penalty, leading the Court to order the deposit of the amounts with the Customs Department within four weeks for the release of the goods. Upon deposit, the goods would be released to the Petitioner or his representative, with confirmation of identity required. The petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications.The issues considered in the judgment include:1. Whether the Petitioner failed to disclose all relevant facts in the petition.2. Whether the Petitioner's willingness to pay the fine and penalty warranted the release of the detained goods.The Court found that the Petitioner's non-disclosure of relevant facts was significant, as it impacted the root of the matter and was considered suppression of material facts. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and providing all relevant information. The Court noted that the Petitioner had full knowledge of the order and had not taken legal steps to address the issue. The Court ultimately ordered the deposit of the fine and penalty for the release of the goods, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal requirements.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to provide all relevant information. The Court's decision to order the deposit of the fine and penalty for the release of the goods underscores the significance of complying with legal obligations in such cases.