Maneesha Pasham vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed before the Telangana High Court. In WP No. 9163 of 2024, the petitioner, Maneesha Pasham, challenged the seizure of 932.600 grams of gold by the respondent Customs Authorities on December 31, 2023, and a subsequent notice dated February 6, 2024. In WP No. 9165 of 2024, the petitioner, Mudedla Kalavathi, challenged the seizure of 1632 grams of gold on December 30, 2023, and a similar notice dated February 6, 2024. Both petitioners sought a declaration that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, and prayed for the provisional release of the gold under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, or re-export under Section 80 of the Act. They also sought production of CCTV footage and a stay on further proceedings.

Held

The Court noted that the respondent-Authorities, through their learned Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that the seized gold had already been sent to the Government Mint for disposal in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Sub-Sections 1-A and 1-D of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Notification No. 31/1986. In light of this changed circumstance, the Court was of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioners for provisional release or re-export of the goods could not be granted. However, the Court was assured that if the petitioners were to succeed in any subsequent proceedings, they would be paid the entire value of the seized gold. The Court, therefore, reserved the right of the petitioners to avail other remedies and disposed of the writ petitions. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent-Authorities in seizing the gold from the petitioners was illegal and arbitrary, warranting a Writ of Mandamus for its provisional release under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, or re-export under Section 80 of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary and sought the provisional release of the seized gold upon payment of applicable duty or on any other conditions directed by the court. They also sought the production of CCTV footage and a stay on further proceedings. Revenue's arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents stated that the seized gold had already been sent to the Government Mint for disposal as per the provisions of Notification No. 31/1986, dated 05.02.1986, in terms of Sub-Sections 1-A and 1-D of Section 110 of the Act. However, he submitted that in case the petitioners succeed in the proceedings, they shall be paid the entire value of the weight of the goods seized.