KUDY MAJEED v. UNION OF INDIA in W.P.No

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issire a Writ of lvtandamus or any olher appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or'Directions to the '1st respondent the to release the seized gold jewellery weighing 54096 grams to the petitioner no.'1 as per the direction of the CESTAT, Kolkata in Customs Appeal No.7535912024 and batch, dt.18.03.2025 and direct the 1st respondent to act in accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the'circumstpnces stated in the affidavitJile'd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to release the gold jewellery weighing 54096 grams to the petitioner no,1 as per the direction of the CESTAT, Kolkata in Customs Appeal No7535912024 and batch, dt.18,03.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/s. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, senior standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KIJMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for GBIC The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICB NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.10720 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dominic Femandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. The present is a writ petition which has been filed seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents in the nature of Mandamus to principally comply with the directions so given by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastem Zonal Bench, Kolkata dated 18.03.2025 in batch of critoms appeals, the lead case of which is Customs Appeal No.75358 of 2024 and batch matters.

3. The'matter pertains to recovery of gold ornaments weighing around 50 kgs from the petitioners on 04.04.2018. The authorities of the DRI subsequently had issued show cause proceedings on 2 x

29.03.2019 so far as scizure of the gold jewellen, is concemed. The petitioners submitted their reply to the same on 31.07.2023 and the adjudicating authority passed an ord6r whereby the seized jewellery wa; confiscated in favour of the Government with an option that wrrs granted to the petitioners herein to redeem the same upon payment of redemption fine of Rs.80 lakhs and penalty of Rs.l9 lakhs. AggrieveC by the said order, the deprutment as also the petitioners has prelerred respective appeals. 1'he department had challenged this order ofthe adjudicating authoritlr alleging that the redemption fine ar.rd the penalty imposed was or 1.he lower side and on the ,rontrary the petitioners have challenged the same alteging that the redemption hne and the penalry imposed was exorbitant. It is this batch of appeals which stood decided by the order of the IIESTAT on 18.03.2025 whereby the appeals of the petitioners were taken up together and disposed of by partly allowing the prayers of the petitioners to the extent that the redemption line imposed got reduced from Rs.80 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs and the penalty amount of Rs.l9 lakhs got reduced to Rs.3,45,000/- The Tribunal further ordered that upon payment of ,, 3 the said amount of redemption fine and the penalty, the gold jewellery seized from the possession of the petitioners be released to the petitioners. For ready reference, the operative part of the Tribunal order is being reproduced herein as under: "39. ln the result, we pass the following order: - (i) We uphold the order of confiscation of the consignment of 1 194 pcs of gold bangles weighing 9096 gms. having an ascertained value of Rs.16,10,43,792l- cleared by diversion of the consignment in the domestic area, under Section 1 13(k) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) We impose a redemption fine of Rs- 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Act for redemption of the goods confiscated on account of diversion of the export consignment. (iii) The penalties imposed on Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Shri Preet Kumar Agarwal and Shri Avinash Soni under Section 1 14(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 stand reduced to Rs.2,00,0001 (Rupees Two Lakhs only), Rs.1,00,0001 (Rupees One Lakh only) and Rs.20,0001 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), as discussed in paragraph 35.1 of this Order. (iv) The penalty of Rs.25,000f (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) imposed on Shri Pallav Roy Chowdhury under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is upheld. (v) No penalty is imposable on the appellants/ exporters/notices under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, '1962, (vi) We order that the gold jewellery, which has been seized from the possession of Shri Sanjay Agarwal, is to be released to Shri Sanjay Agarwal on payment of redemption fine and penalties indicated at (ii) and (iii) supra. 4 X (vii) No proceedings are sustainable against the other noticees to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2019 rssued in this case. 40 ln these terms, the appeals are disposed cl."

4. The pr:sent writ petition now has been field seeking for an appropriate ilirection to the authorities for compliance of the directives giren by the fribunal insofar as clause ,/i of paragraph 39 of the op!'rative portion reproduced above wh<:rein there is a direction for rclease of the good. The leamed Standing Counsel was permitted to seek instructions from the department. Upon instructions, the leamed Standing Counsel submits that it would be too early at this stage to comply with the order for the department and there is still a period of limitatirlt left for the department to assail the order if they so want. 1'he period of limitation available is I 80 days

5. The leamed Senior Counsel appearing for r.he petitioners, however, contends that since the redemption fine and the penalty amount both added together as awarded by the Tribunal is only around Rs. 18.45 lakhs which is much below the 'nonetary limit prescribed by the departrnent for preferring an appe;rl. There is no 5 likelihood of any ohallenge to be made in the light of the ciroulars of the CBIC in this regard. Even otherwise, the leamed Senior Counsel submits that even the original order bf the adjudicating authority also if the redemption fine and the penalty amount is added together, it comes to less than Rs.l crore. Even then, it is below monetary limit in preferring the appeal. Even on that ground also, there is hardly any charge for the department to contest the case. To this, the leamed Standing Counsel contends that the aspect of monetary limit in the instant case may not be applicable in accordance with the said circular of the CBIC, as the amount of penalty and the redemption fine which the petitioners are liable to pay exceeds Rs.l crore, though the adjudicating authority or the CESTAT may have awarded lesser redemption fine and penalty. Therefore, that would not be covered by the said circular. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of a decision of this very High Court under similar circumstances in the case of NASEER CHITTETHT]KUDY MAJEED VS. UNION OF INDIA in W.P.No.46508 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2023 wherein in paragraph 18, it has been held as under: x 6 '18. Adverting to the facts of the present case, once lhe appellate authority has passed the order-in-appeal .and directed release of the goods on payment of -edemption fine, it is not open lo regpondent No.5 to lecline release of such goods despite payment of -edemption fine by the petitioner. Respondent No.5, leing an officer lower in hierarchy lhan the lommissioner of Appeals, is bound to comply with the )rder of the higher appellate authority, unless the :rder of the higher appellate authority is stayed by a still higher forum. As has been observed by the Supreme Court, unless there is adherence to the crinciple 1 6 of judicial discipline, there would be chaos n administration of the tax laws. Such a situation :annot be permitted".

6. Given the aforesaid facts and circur,stances, mofe particularly taking into consideration the fact that it is now more than about 4rJ days time having already elapsed frorn the order of CESTAT and also more than a month from the impugned order served upon the department and till date, there does not seem to be any appeal having pref-erred by the department. Hence, we are left with no othcr option but to dispose of the writ petition at this juncture dire'cting respondent No.l to take appropriate steps in ensuring conrpliance of clause vi of the paragraph 39 of the order 7 of the Tribunal, at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from todaY. The writ petition, accordingly' stands disposed of' There 7 shall be no order as to costs' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall smnd closed //TRUE COPY// SD'-P. PADMANABHA REDDY Futv REctsrRaR ECTION.OFFICER min), Customs j,:'Ij,:n.:,sl*,[:b13,lg%3,0]i,,n,n"" ,N The Principal Commissioner of Customs' -(Airport rli::z h*033 1" M/s VEDU LA cH ITRALEKHA' Advocate,[oPUC l one cc to SRI DoMlNlc F'EiiNxi'ltEd' i"nioi ttan<iing counsel for CBlc sIJ"% to sRt GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLlCtroR GENERAL oF orth Block, New Delhi rNDIA [OPUC] Two CD CoPies To

1. 2 .7 4 5 Cl PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.10720 of 2025 f, 03 rru Zffi ;) -L t {) * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS