Dismissed¶18

Goldie Sud v. The Commissioner of Customs Passenger Arrivals

Bombay HC13 Oct 2025RPW/54/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition No. 54 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, decided 13 October 2025 by M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; review of order dated 28 July 2025 in Writ Petition No. 1094 of 2024; petitioner Goldie Sud in-person versus Commissioner of Customs (Passenger Arrivals); seizure of gold; restraint on sale of seized gold pending adjudication of show cause notice; refusal of liberty to challenge show cause notice; review dismissed as attempt to re-argue; no costs; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The grounds in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(k) of the review petition constitute nothing but an attempt to re-argue the matter and make out no case whatsoever for review of the order dated 28 July 2025 ¶13

Goldie Sud vs The Commissioner of Customs Passenger Arrivals — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

4-RPW.54.25.DOCX

¶2

PPN

¶3

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

¶4

Digitally signed by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR REVIEW PETITION NO.54 OF 2025 NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.10.1411:37:54 +0530 WITH IN-PERSON APPLICATION (L) NO.28081 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2024

¶5

Goldie Sud … Petitioner

¶6

Versus The Commissioner of Customs … Respondents (Passenger Arrivals) & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Goldie Sud, petitioner in-person.

¶8

Mr. Piyush Todkar i/by Mr. Harshad Shinganapurkar for Respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 13 October 2025

¶11

PC. :-

¶12

Heard Mr. Goldie Sud, petitioner who appears in-person and Mr. Piyush Todkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶13

This petition seeks review of our order date 28 July 2025. Mr. Sud refers to the grounds set out in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(k) of the review petition. On a perusal of those grounds it would show that this is nothing but an attempt to re-argue the matter by the petitioner who appears in-person. Earlier, when the order dated 28 July 2025 was made, the petitioner, was represented by a counsel.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

4-RPW.54.25.DOCX

¶16

Based on the grounds set out in the review petition, no case whatsoever is made out to review our order dated 28 July 2025. By our order dated 28 July 2025, we had granted the petitioner limited relief by restraining the respondents from selling the seized gold pending the disposal of the adjudication proceedings. We also directed that this restraint will continue for an additional period prescribed in the order in case any adverse orders are made against the petitioner. We have also issued directions for adjudication of the show cause notice depending upon the cause shown by the petitioner on merits.

¶17

Mr. Sud now states that he should be granted liberty to challenge the show cause notice. There is no question of grant of any liberty considering the directions issued by us in our order dated 28 July 2025. Even otherwise, whatever contention that the petitioner has now raised in the review petition, can always be raised in response to the show cause notice. Already, liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions in response to the show cause notice.

¶18

For the above reasons, we see no merit in this review petition and consequently, dismiss the same along with the InPerson Application without any order for costs.

¶19

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶20

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Goldie Sud v. The Commissioner of Customs Passenger Arrivals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goldie Sud v. The Commissioner of Customs Passenger Arrivals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited vs the Official Liquidator of C Mahendra Exports Ltd.

Dinesh Kanhialal Jain vs The State of Maharashtra through the Financial Secretary

Relcon Innowave It Joint Venture vs Union of India Through Secretary

Stelmec Ltd. vs Union of India

Rr Kabel Limited vs Union of India

Memphis Realtors Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra