The Commissioner Of Customs vs. Mohammed Mohsin Mobin Shaikh And Anr

Held

The Court held that the Revisional Authority erred in passing two contradictory orders by not adjudicating the two revision applications simultaneously. The Court found this situation anomalous and one that should have been avoided. To resolve the ambiguity and ensure fairness, the Court decided to set aside both the impugned order dated June 22, 2020, and the subsequent order dated September 30, 2021. The Court restored both revision applications to the file of the Revisional Authority and directed that they be adjudicated simultaneously on their own merits. The Revisional Authority was instructed not to be influenced by the now-set-aside contradictory orders. All contentions of the parties on merits were left open for the Revisional Authority to decide. The Revisional Authority was directed to issue notices, provide a hearing to both parties, and dispose of the applications within six months.

Facts

The Commissioner of Customs, Pune (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 22, 2020, passed by the Revisional Authority (RA). This order had allowed the revision application of Mohammed Mohsin Mobin Shaikh (Respondent No. 1) and set aside a confiscation order. The confiscation order was initially set aside by the first appellate authority on March 2, 2017, subject to payment of fines and penalties. The Petitioner had also filed its own revision application challenging the first appellate authority's order. Crucially, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the RA disposed of the Petitioner's revision application on September 30, 2021, setting aside the first appellate authority's order and restoring the original confiscation order. This resulted in two conflicting orders from the RA concerning the same matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Revisional Authority erred by passing two contradictory orders concerning the same subject matter, namely the confiscation of smuggled goods, by adjudicating separate revision applications filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent simultaneously and independently? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Revisional Authority should have heard both revision applications (one filed by the Respondent and one by the Petitioner) simultaneously. The Petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated June 22, 2020, and requested a remand to the RA for fresh adjudication of both revision applications together to resolve the anomaly of conflicting orders. The Petitioner relied on its additional affidavit detailing the contradictory orders. Revenue/State's arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue/State, other than their participation through the Petitioner (Commissioner of Customs). The Petitioner's additional affidavit highlighted the conflicting orders and prayed for the ambiguity to be removed by the Court.