Ajin W, v. the Union of India Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance

Kerala HC18 Sept 2023WP(C)/27020/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-day order in a writ petition challenges the confiscation of gold articles and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The court declined to adjudicate merits due to disputed factual questions, instead granting the petitioner time to file an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file appeal within three weeks to Commissioner (Appeals); time period extended for filing appeal without bar by limitation.

Ajin W, Vs the Union of India Represented by Its… — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 27020 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

AJIN W,
AGED 24 YEARS
9-35, KARA VILAI VEEDU,
KIRATHOOR,VILAVANCODE, KANYAKUMARI,
TAMILNADU, PIN – 629160.

¶7

BY ADVS.
 SRI. S. JAYANT
 SRI. JEREES J.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
ROOM NO 46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 100001.

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIR CUSTOMS, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695024.

¶11

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) COMMISSIONERATE, BROADWAY, COCHIN, PIN – 682018.

¶12

BY ADV.
 SRI. SREELAL WARRIER – SC - CGST

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 27020 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No.27020 of 2023

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed Impugning the confiscation order Exhibit P-1 passed by the 2^nd respondent making the order absolute in respect of two gold chains, one gold ring and one gold pendant weighing 100.8 grams having market value of of Rs.5,55,408/- (Rupees Five lakh fifty five thousand four hundred and eight only) seized from the possession of the petitioner under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(1) & 111(m) of the Customs Act,1962. The penalty of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) has also been imposed on the petitioner.

¶21

Admittedly, the order impugned i.e. Exhibit P-1 is an appealable order before the Commissioner Appeals under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The extended time period for filing an appeal is expiring today. But, since the writ petition has remained pending before this Court, this Court deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner three weeks time from today to file appeal before

¶22

WP(C) NO. 27020 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

the Commissioner (Appeals) and if such an appeal is filed, the Commissioner will look into the merits of the appeal and decide it on merit without going into the question of limitation. This Court has not gone into the merits of the case inasmuch as some disputed question of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶25

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file appeal within a period of three weeks which shall be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits expeditiously.

¶26

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶27

Svn

¶28

WP(C) NO. 27020 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27020/2023

¶31

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT IN OS NO. 30/2023 DATED
19-06-2023

Ajin W, v. the Union of India Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajin W, v. the Union of India Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahamed Thazhe Chalikal, Vs the Tahsildar

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Represented by Its Managing Partner, R. Elangovan, Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Arrears Recovery)

K.Santhosh Kumar Vs the Elanthoor Grama Panchayath

Akbar P. T., Vs the District Collector

Ramankutty P.C., Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Ali. M Vs the Secretary