Disposed

Binoy Francis v. Union of India

Kerala HC4 Aug 2023WP(C)/12068/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in a writ petition regarding seized gold, observed that the release of seized gold was denied pending an appeal filed by the Department. The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner of Customs to decide appeal No.1/2020 filed by the Department expeditiously within two months.

Binoy Francis Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12068 OF 2020

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1 BINOY FRANCIS

¶6

AGED 46 YEARS

¶7

S/O.K.A.FRANCIS, KOKKEN HOUSE,
PERINCHERY.P.O, OLLUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680306

¶8

2CIMI BINOY
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.BINOY FRANCIS, S/O.K.A.FRANCIS, KOKKEN HOUSE,
PERINCHERY.P.O, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680306

¶9

BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001

¶12

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE), 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN-682031

¶13

3 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) THRISSUR DIVISION, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-688001

¶14

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE OFFICE, THRISSUR-688001 BY ADVS.

¶15

SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

¶16

DAYA MARY-SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC No.12068 of 2020

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2023

¶22

Heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel

¶23

for the petitioner as well as Ms.Daya Mary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs Department.

¶24

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order Ext.P1, detention memo dated 16.10.2019 in respect of 1984.77 grams gold. The petitioner has submitted an application for genuineness of the gold covered under bill of entry in favour of the HDFC Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that The GRT Jewellers purchased the gold from the HDFC Bank and the said gold has been handed over to the petitioner by GRT Jewellers for making jewellery items. The said gold was seized from the business premises of the petitioner. It is submitted that the import of the gold was legal under the

¶25

WPC No.12068 of 2020

¶26

¶27

provisions of the Customs Acts and Rules, thereunder and the notification issued in this regard from the bank. The release of the gold has been denied only on the ground that against the order passed for the release of the gold , an appeal has been filed.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid submission, the 2^nd respondent, The Commissioner of Customs is directed to decide the appeal No.1/2020 filed by the Department against the order dated 27.09.2020, expeditiously within a period of two months, in accordance with the law.

¶29

With the aforesaid direction the copy of this order communicated by the counsel for the Deputy Solicitor General as well as the petitioner to

¶30

the 2^nd respondent for the necessary compliance.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WPC No.12068 of 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12068/2020

¶38

`PETITIONER ANNEX` `EXHIBIT P1`	`URES` `A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETENTION MEMO DATED` `16.10.2019`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSAY MAHAZAR DATED 05.11.2019`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.11.2019 ALONG` `WITH BILLS ISSUED BY THE HDFC BANK`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.11.2019 ALONG` `WITH BILLS ISSUED BY THE CUSTOMERS`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED` `11.11.2019`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED` `02.03.2020`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A PHOTOCOPY O THE SAID REQUEST LETTER DATED` `20.03.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.06.2020` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2016 IN` `WP(C) NO.5939/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH` `COURT OF DELHI`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.72/2022-23/JC/ADC/TVM-AP DATED 27.09.2022` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED` `07.10.2022`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.11.2022 ISSUED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED` `20.01.2023`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.01.2023 ISSUED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED` `06.02.2023` `RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT`
`ANNEXURE R1(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE` `OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF` `CUSTOMS, CHENNAI DATED 16.07.2020`

Binoy Francis v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoy Francis v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joy Jacob Vs Thiruvalla Municipality

M/S.Vysali Pharamaceuticals Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner

Bestin Joy Vs State of Kerala

Alfa Ventures (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Brothers Vs State Tax Officer

Santhamma Abraham Vs State of Kerala