9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing final reliefs:- "(a):- That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari and quash and set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 12/12/2019 Exhibit F bearing No. DRI/MZU/C/Int-102/2019 and impugned Order-in-Original dated 13/1/2023 Exhibit J in DRI/MZU/C/INT-102/2019, so far as it relates to the subject property of the Petitioner; (b) This this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to issue Show Cause Notice as per Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and grant personal hearing to the Petitioner with respect to confiscation of subject property i.e. 511.60 gms of Gold taken f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arcels and detained gold bars of 32.380 kgs. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said 32.380 kgs of gold detained included the said gold owned by the Petitioner. 6. Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that it claimed the said gold from Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. However, the claim of the Petitioner was not considered by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 7. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 12th December, 2019, under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 , inter alia, for confiscation of 32.380 kgs of gold from Concor Air Limited on the allegation that they were smuggled goods. The said 32.380 kgs of gold included the said gold of the Petitioner. The said Show Cause Notice was not issued to the Petitioner. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Show Cause Notice nor any intimation of hearing in the matter. By the said letter, the Petitioner also gave a detailed explanation about the key events in respect of the said gold. 13. Since, despite the aforesaid letters, the Respondents ignored the submissions of the Petitioner, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 8th September, 2021, through its Advocate, to Respondent No.3, seeking a personal hearing. 14. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents did not consider the representations of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 passed an Order-in-Original dated 13th January, 2023, confiscating the said 32.380 kgs of gold and imposing penalties. The said Order also records that many persons, including the Petitioner, had add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order, without being influenced by the Order-in-Original dated 13th January, 2023. 18. Further, we are of the view that, as requested by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, till a decision is taken in respect of the representations of the Petitioner, status-quo should be maintained in respect of the said gold. Further, we are also of the view that, in the event of the Petitioner succeeding in proving its case, the Respondents will have to be directed to restore to the Petitioner the said gold or equivalent amount of gold or to compensate the Petitioner by making payment of an amount equivalent to the market value of the said gold as on date. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we hereby pass the following orders:- (a) Respondent No. 1 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
