Smt. Jemina Begum vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Customs

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Revision Applications Unit), New Delhi, to consider the pending revision application on its merits. The authority was instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the matter, leaving it open for the concerned authority to decide. The Court did not grant the immediate relief of re-export sought by the petitioner but instead directed the resolution of the pending revision application. No specific provision was directly interpreted or applied to decide the core issue of re-export eligibility, as the matter was relegated to the revision authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Jemina Begum, arrived from Singapore at Tiruchirapalli with a gold chain weighing 499.200 grams, valued at Rs. 15,98,938/-. Customs officers seized the gold, stating she lacked valid documents or an import license. The petitioner contended she was eligible as an NRI to bring gold upon payment of duty. An adjudicating authority confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order and allowed the appeal, permitting re-export of the gold. However, the Customs Authorities in Tiruchirapalli refused to implement this order. The petitioner sent letters requesting re-export arrangements, but no action was taken, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first respondent (Additional Commissioner of Customs) is bound to implement the Order-in-Appeal No. 23/2022 - TRY (CUS), dated 22.08.2022, passed by the second respondent (Commissioner of Customs (App)), directing the re-export of the seized gold ornament to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Appeal clearly permitted re-export and the Customs Authorities were obligated to comply with it. They relied on the principle that appellate orders must be honored. Respondents' Argument: The respondents submitted that a revision application had been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.08.2022 before the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Revision Applications Unit), and this revision application was still pending.