2025 (2) TMI 755 - HC - Customs

Implementation of the order dated 29th January 2024 - release of certain goods belonging to the Petitioner who had arrived from Paris and had goods detained by the Customs Department - liberty sought by the Petitioner to file an appeal - HELD THAT - On both counts the Court has perused the copy of the incomplete appeal which has been served by the Department upon the Petitioner. Clearly there has been an appeal which has been filed by the Department of which formal notice may yet even be not issued to the Petitioner. Moreover as per the Petitioner the appeal has also not been listed till date. Considering these circumstances and the fact that the matter would have to be adjudicated comprehensively by the Commissioner (Appeals) the Petitioner is also permitted to file his appeal within a period of thirty days from now before the Commissioner (Appeals) - If the Petitioner intends to seek implementation of the order dated 29th January 2024 to the extent that permits the deposit of redemption fine and partial release of goods for export under specified conditions he may seek the same from the Commissioner (Appeals). Let both the Appeals be listed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 15th April 2025 for hearing and adjudication in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.

Summary

The present case involves a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The order in question partially released certain goods belonging to the Petitioner, who had arrived from Paris and had goods detained by the Customs Department. The detained goods included silver bars, a gold Kada, a gold chain, and a gold bar. The Petitioner had allegedly confessed to bringing the goods through the green channel intentionally and expressed willingness to pay penalties and duties imposed.The impugned Order-in-Original issued on January 29, 2024, declared the Petitioner ineligible for certain allowances, ordered the confiscation of specific goods, imposed fines, and allowed redemption of confiscated goods upon payment of a fine. The Petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order and seeking permission to file an appeal against it.During the proceedings, it was revealed that the order had not been served on the Petitioner promptly, and the Petitioner had not been informed about any appeal filed by the department. The Court noted that an appeal had indeed been filed by the Department, but formal notice had not been issued to the Petitioner, and the appeal had not been listed for hearing. Considering these circumstances, the Court allowed the Petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days before the Commissioner (Appeals). Additionally, if the Petitioner wished to implement the order allowing for the deposit of redemption fine and partial release of goods for export, they could seek approval from the Commissioner (Appeals).The Court directed the communication of its order to the Commissioner (Appeals) for compliance and scheduled both appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing and adjudication in accordance with the law on April 15, 2025. Finally, the petition was disposed of in the above terms, and any pending applications were also disposed of.In summary, the Court allowed the Petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order and permitted them to seek implementation of the order for the deposit of redemption fine and partial release of goods for export under specified conditions. The matter was referred to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further adjudication, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.