2022 (10) TMI 1234 - HC - Customs

Seizure of gold chains - Confiscation - appeal filed after the period of 60 days prescribed in section 128 of the Act even beyond the period of 30 days upto which the delay can be condoned - notice issued requiring him to produce evidence regarding filing of appeal and the order failure to produce such evidence would result in the gold being sold in auction u/s 150 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - The incident had occurred on 3/6/2014 and the confiscation order was issued on 7/3/2014. Admittedly appeal against that order was filed highly belatedly resulting in Ext. P4 order dated 18/6/2015. The petitioner did not challenge Ext. P4 order for a long period of seven years and was prompted to action only when served with Ext. P5 notice proposing to sell the confiscated gold. As there is inordinate delay on the petitioner s part this court will not be justified in entertaining and granting the relief sought in this writ petition. In the result the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold chains under Customs Act 1962 and Foreign Trade (D&R) Act 1992.
2. Challenge to the confiscation order due to delay in filing appeal.
3. Petitioner's contention of lack of opportunity to present case and financial constraints.
4. Legal position on condoning delay in filing appeal under Article 226.
5. Court's decision on entertaining the writ petition due to belated challenge of confiscation order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was intercepted at the airport with two gold chains, leading to confiscation proceedings under Section 111(d), (i), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act 1962 along with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act 1992.

2. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order belatedly, resulting in dismissal due to exceeding the prescribed appeal filing period of 60 days under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, a notice (Ext. P5) was issued for producing evidence regarding the appeal, warning of auctioning the gold under Section 150 of the Customs Act if evidence was not provided.

3. The petitioner argued that the adjudication authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to present his case, citing financial constraints as the reason for the delay in approaching the court. However, the Standing Counsel for Customs Commissionerate contended that the court should not condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory limits.

4. The court noted the significant delay in challenging the confiscation order, with the petitioner only taking action upon receiving the notice about the auction of the confiscated gold after seven years. The court emphasized that the belated challenge did not justify entertaining the writ petition, considering the prolonged inaction by the petitioner.

5. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the excessive delay on the petitioner's part as a crucial factor in the decision not to grant the relief sought in the case.