The Kerala High Court has directed the Non-Resident India (NRI) to challenge the confiscation of 998 grams of gold made by the customs department in a statutory appeal.
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian residing in Saudi Arabia, she is alleged to have been intercepted while exiting the airport. 998 gms. of gold, which she was apparently wearing, has been directed to be confiscated. The petitioner must be given an opportunity to avail her statutory remedy of filing an appeal at least.
The Petitioner/assessee has challenged the order of the customs department in confiscating jewellery of the petitioner having a total weight of 998 gms. to the value of Rs.45,64,533/-, apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-.
The petitioner submitted that the Superintendent of Customs (Air Intelligence Unit) intercepted the petitioner at the exit gate of the Calicut International Airport on her arrival from Saudi Arabia. On a personal search and interrogation, she was found to be in possession of gold jewellery of two gold chains, six bangles, two gold bracelets and one pair of gold anklets. Subsequently, despite notices issued to the petitioner, there was no appearance, and finally, the impugned order was issued, confiscating the entire gold and also imposing a penalty on the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner stems from the circumstance that despite engaging an Advocate to represent her, the order was passed ex-parte, without any representation by the Advocate. Though requisite fees was paid to the Advocate for representing her, and each time the notice was received by the petitioner for hearing, the Advocate would submit that he had appeared, it was only after Exhibit-P1 order was served on the petitioner, did the petitioner realise that she was not represented. Even thereafter, when the Advocate was contacted, he intimated that an appeal had to be preferred.
Later, when the petitioner verified her honor, she realised that the appeal had not been filed. According to the petitioner, unless the impugned order is set aside, she would be put to serious prejudice, as a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted, and the order issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The court held that while declining to interfere wit the impugned order, petitioner is given the liberty to pursue the appellate remedy in accordance with law. The period from 31.08.2023 i.e., the date of order till today shall stand excluded while calculating the period of limitation.
Case Details
Case Title: Shamna Thasni Pattani Versus Cutsoms Commissioner
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 32351 OF 2024
Date: 07/04/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Adv Cherian Mathew Poothicote
Counsel For Respondent: Adv J.Vishnu
Read More: Large Number Of GST Matters Filed Before Delhi Court On A Daily Basis [READ ORDER]
