Smt. Fariya Khaleed vs. The Principal Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Fariya Khaleed, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of gold ornaments weighing 388.6 grams, valued at ₹31,16,961, which she brought from Dubai. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner and Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad. The department issued a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, on October 20, 2024. The petitioner claims the gold was purchased by her husband in Dubai for family purposes and she carried it to India without disclosing it due to ignorance of customs procedures. The High Court had previously granted an interim order on November 20, 2024, directing the maintenance of status quo regarding the seized gold.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities in response to the summons dated October 20, 2024, within two weeks. The petitioner was also granted liberty to move an appropriate application for provisional release of the gold ornaments under Section 108A of the Customs Act, which the authorities were directed to consider in accordance with law. The interim protection granted by the High Court on November 20, 2024, was ordered to be maintained until a final decision is taken by the competent authority. The Court did not make any specific finding on the legality of the seizure itself but facilitated a procedural resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in seizing the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner, despite the petitioner producing a tax invoice and offering to pay the requisite customs duty, is arbitrary and illegal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 108 and potentially other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962). The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary and illegal, especially since she was willing to pay the customs duty and had a tax invoice. She contended that her failure to disclose was due to ignorance of customs procedures. The revenue's argument was not explicitly recorded beyond their contention that the petitioner brought the gold and was issued a summons. The petitioner also sought directions for the release of the seized gold by collecting the requisite customs duty.