Writ petition for recovery of seized gold and grievances over customs orders dismissed summarily due to petitioner's failure to explain a 17-year lapse in challenging orders and unauthorized representation by another advocate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Harish Muljimal Gandhi ....Petitioner Through IN PERSON
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …..Respondents Through Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 04.08.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person.
Petitioner has stated that he was a Non Resident Indian and on 2nd
October, 1997, he came from Dubai and from his baggage 319 gms gold, valued at Rs.1,46,740/-, electronic and miscellaneous goods
valued at Rs.2,56,500/- and Indian currency of Rs.3,500/- were seized at
the Indira Gandhi International Airport. He was prosecuted but was
acquitted on 24th April, 2010. Copy of the judgment passed by the trial court has, however, not been placed on record.
Additional Commissioner of Customs, for release of gold for re-export
WPC 4724/2011 Page 1 of 5
and demanded monetary value of electronic goods. He also asked for interest.
Commissioner of Customs, IGI, Airport, informed the petitioner that the ACMM, had acquitted him on technical grounds and an appeal has been filed against the said acquittal. On the question of return of gold, monetary value of the electronic and miscellaneous goods and interest, it was stated that the petitioner had been called upon to show cause as to why the same should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, after following the prescribed procedure. It was stated that a show cause notice dated 24th March, 1998, had been issued under the said provision as well as why the penalty should not be levied under Section 112(a)&(b) of the Act,. The said show cause notice was replied by Mr. J.K. Srivastava, Advocate, and the personal hearing was also attended by the petitioner alongwith Mr.
J.K. Srivastava, Advocate. By the order dated 11th January, 1999, direction was issued for absolute confiscation of gold and Indian currency of Rs.3500/- and the electronic and misc. goods were also
WPC 4724/2011
2 of 5
ordered to be confiscated with an option for redeeming the same on payment of Rs.2,56,000/- and a redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Personal penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
WPC 4724/2011 Page 3 of 5
petitioner, thereafter wrote two letters dated 23rd December, 2010 and 20th March, 2011, but the respondent vide their letters dated 16th January, 2011 and 21st April, 2011, repudiated the stand and stance of the petitioner.
and the appellate order and the revision order were not received by him.
presume and accept that an Advocate would have entered appearance, filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice and then preferred an appeal
and a revision petition without instructions. Filing and appearance before the appellate authority and in revision entails expenditure, time and effort. A legal professional would not act, file and prosecute an appeal or revision without instructions in a matter of this nature. It is not possible to accept that the petitioner would have remained quite
for over 17 years. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was
WPC 4724/2011 Page 4 of 5
prosecuted for offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, was well guided and had access to legal advice. The contentions raised
are an after thought, deserve no credence and are to be rejected.
the petitioner, we are not inclined to issue notice on the present writ
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
August 04, 2011 Kkb
WPC 4724/2011 Page 5 of 5
Harish Muljimal Gandhi
Union of India & Ors.
Sanjiv Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
