2018 (11) TMI 1402 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - petitioner has contended that he has never been given an opportunity to defend himself - Confiscation of seized Gold Ornaments - Held that - The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act - if the questions are answered on merits, the petitioner will loose an opportunity of invoking the appellate Tribunal. The Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 128 of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold ornaments by Customs authorities during the petitioner's visit to India.
2. Allegation of violation of natural justice principles by the Customs authorities.
3. Petitioner's contention of not being given an opportunity to defend himself.
4. Customs Department's argument of following procedures correctly.
5. The availability of an alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, who is a frequent traveler to India and claimed to be employed in the UAE, had gold ornaments seized by Customs authorities during his visit in January 2018. Subsequently, the petitioner participated in the confiscation proceedings and challenged the Ext.R1(c) (Part-B) order through a Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the authorities made the petitioner sign multiple documents, some in printed format, which were later used to suggest that the petitioner had waived his rights, including the right to receive a show cause notice. This led to the contention that the proceedings were vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The petitioner claimed that he was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself adequately during the proceedings. It was argued that the petitioner never intended to evade Customs duty, as evidenced by his choice of channel at the airport. The petitioner's counsel raised various other contentions challenging the actions of the Customs authorities.

4. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department asserted that the authorities had followed the correct procedures diligently. It was contended that the notice was waived at the petitioner's request to expedite the adjudication process, and the subsequent actions were in accordance with the law. The Standing Counsel addressed all the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel.

5. The judgment refrained from delving into the merits of the case, highlighting the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The court advised the petitioner to pursue the appellate authority within a month, ensuring that any delay would be condoned, considering the petitioner's genuine attempt to seek redress through the writ remedy, which was deemed futile.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision regarding the petitioner's recourse under the Customs Act.