Dismissed

Satish Punabhai Chandpara v. the Union of India, through Office of the Commissioner of Customs

Bombay HC6 Feb 2024CONPW/5/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged breach of an earlier order directing Customs to verify that seized diamonds were locally purchased and not imported. The Court held there was no intentional disobedience and that the petitioner's remedy lay elsewhere. The Contempt Petition and interim application for release of goods were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satish Punabhai Chandpara Vs the Union of India, through… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

921.CONPW5_2023.DOC

¶2

2024:BHC-OS:2187-DB

¶3

Vidya Amin

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2023

¶6

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3803 OF 2022 WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5025 OF 2022

¶8

Satish Poonabhai Chandpara … Petitioner/

¶9

Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India , through Office of the Commissioner …Respondent of Customs Mr. Hanuman S. Gujar

¶12

Mr. Anand Jondhale a/w. Ms. Medha Jondhale, Ms. Rajnandini Jondhale, Mr. Harshvardhan Shinde i/b. Jondhale & Co. for the petitioner/applicant.

¶13

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh for the respondent.

¶14

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 6 February, 2024

¶15

P.C.

¶16

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on this Contempt Petition.

¶17

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging that there is breach of the order dated 29 August, 2022 passed by this Court. The grievance of the petitioner was to the effect that the Custom Officer has no authority to seize the goods of the petitioner, namely, 629 carats assorted cut and polished diamonds,

¶18

asserted on the basis of the copies of the bills, which were also illegible was considered by the Court. The petitioner had contended that the diamonds which

¶19

were sized by the department were locally purchased from various companies by

¶20

Page 1 of 2 6 February, 2024

¶21

921.CONPW5_2023.DOC

¶22

the petitioner.

¶23

As the Court was not in a position to consider such documents, the Court disposed of the writ petition recording the statement on behalf of the department that the petitioner can approach the Office of the Commissioner of Customs and satisfy the concerned officer that the goods seized were not imported and they were locally purchased. The petitioner was directed to meet the concerned officer at 11.30 a.m. on 7 September, 2022 and satisfy the said officer that the diamonds confiscated are not imported and legitimately procured locally. It is on such premise the petition was disposed of.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had approached the concerned officer of the Customs, but the goods are not released. In our opinion, considering the nature of the order, it cannot be said to be any intentional disobedience of the order passed by the Court. If the petitioner has any grievance in regard to no action is being taken and/or an inappropriate or inadequate action being taken, the remedy for the petitioner would not be to pursue the Contempt Petition but other independent proceedings, as the law may permit.

¶25

The Contempt Petition is accordingly misconceived. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶26

Interim Application, filed in these proceedings, praying for release of the goods, is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)

¶28

Page 2 of 2 6 February, 2024

¶29

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/02/2024 12:16:38

Satish Punabhai Chandpara v. the Union of India, through Office of the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satish Punabhai Chandpara v. the Union of India, through Office of the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sandip Ghanshyam Dolas Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Smt. Anjali Ambadas Koli and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Mr. Shailendra Ravji Chavan Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Cma-Cgm Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Apl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Anr.

Narayan Krishna Narale Vs Commanding Officer and Ors.

Narendra Krishna Jaguste Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Ld App for the State Home Dept and Ors.