Sabarnisha vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Customs

Facts

The petitioner, Sabarnisha, an Indian passport holder, was intercepted at Trichy Airport on January 6, 2020, with undeclared gold jewellery valued at Rs. 56,38,249/-. Following an investigation, a show-cause notice was issued, leading to an order dated September 3, 2020, affirming confiscation and imposing penalties. The petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed on March 28, 2023. Subsequently, a revision was filed before the third respondent (Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) with a delay of 37 days, attributed to health reasons. The petitioner's primary contention is that the revision was rejected solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case. The present writ petition challenges the order of the third respondent dated December 13, 2024, and seeks a direction to pass orders on merits.

Held

The Court found that the petitioner had an adequate and effective remedy of appeal available under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, against the impugned order. The Court noted that the petitioner had not exhausted this alternate statutory remedy. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy before the appropriate appellate authority, specifically the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's grievance regarding the rejection of the revision petition on grounds of delay. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court's decision was based on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the third respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition solely on the ground of delay, without adjudicating on the merits of the case, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation of procedural fairness and the discretion to condone delay in revision proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the revision was rejected solely on the ground of delay, despite the delay being attributable to health reasons, and that the merits of the case were not considered. This, the petitioner contended, was an arbitrary exercise of power and a denial of justice. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the impugned order was issued in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962. They stated that the seizure was due to non-declaration of gold jewellery and that the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, against the impugned order.