Madhu Akunoori vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Madhu Akunoori, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of two gold bars, weighing 233.20 grams and valued at Rs. 16,90,700/-, by respondents 3 and 4 (Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Air Customs Superintendent). The seizure occurred despite the petitioner producing Invoice No. H0-5893 dated 11.06.2024. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the gold from his earnings in the UAE for family purposes and carried it to India without disclosing it to the authorities due to ignorance of customs procedures. The department had issued a summons to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, on 12.06.2024. This court had previously passed an interim order on 09.09.2024, directing the maintenance of the status quo regarding the seized gold.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities within two weeks from the date of the order, in response to the summons dated 12.06.2024. The petitioner was also granted liberty to move an appropriate application for provisional release of the gold under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent authorities were directed to take a decision on the petitioner's response to the summons and any application for provisional release strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. The interim protection granted by the High Court on 09.09.2024 was ordered to be maintained until a final decision is taken by the competent authority. The Court did not decide the legality of the seizure itself but facilitated the process for the petitioner to address the authorities and seek release of the gold.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of respondents 3 and 4 in seizing the two gold bars belonging to the petitioner, despite the production of Invoice No. H0-5893 dated 11.06.2024, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's contention: The seizure was illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional and statutory provisions. The petitioner relied on the invoice produced as proof of legitimate acquisition of the gold. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner brought the gold bars without proper declaration and payment of duty. They issued a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, for further investigation. The revenue did not object to the petitioner appearing before the authorities and cooperating with the investigation.