* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4724/2011
% Date of Decision: August 4, 2011
Harish Muljimal Gandhi ....Petitioner
Through IN PERSON
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 04.08.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person. Petitioner has stated that he was a Non Resident Indian and on 2nd October, 1997, he came from Dubai and from his baggage 319 gms gold, valued at Rs.1,46,740/-, electronic and miscellaneous goods valued at Rs.2,56,500/- and Indian currency of Rs.3,500/- were seized at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. He was prosecuted but was acquitted on 24th April, 2010. Copy of the judgment passed by the trial court has, however, not been placed on record.
2. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 8th October, 2010, to Additional Commissioner of Customs, for release of gold for re-export WPC 4724/2011 Page 1 of 5 and demanded monetary value of electronic goods. He also asked for interest.
3. By letter dated 15th November, 2010, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI, Airport, informed the petitioner that the ACMM, had acquitted him on technical grounds and an appeal has been filed against the said acquittal. On the question of return of gold, monetary value of the electronic and miscellaneous goods and interest, it was stated that the petitioner had been called upon to show cause as to why the same should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, after following the prescribed procedure. It was stated that a show cause notice dated 24th March, 1998, had been issued under the said provision as well as why the penalty should not be levied under Section 112(a)&(b) of the Act,. The said show cause notice was replied by Mr. J.K. Srivastava, Advocate, and the personal hearing was also attended by the petitioner alongwith Mr. J.K. Srivastava, Advocate. By the order dated 11th January, 1999, direction was issued for absolute confiscation of gold and Indian currency of Rs.3500/- and the electronic and misc. goods were also WPC 4724/2011 Page 2 of 5 ordered to be confiscated with an option for redeeming the same on payment of Rs.2,56,000/- and a redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Personal penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Against this order, it is stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was rejected vide order dated 15th September, 1999.
5. It is alleged that the petitioner had then preferred a revision application before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, and the same was decided by the order dated 14th February, 2000. The Order-in-Appeal was modified to the extent of allowing redemption of gold on payment of fine of Rs.40,000/- within four weeks from the receipt of the order. The said order has become final and has not been challenged. As the redemption fine was not paid, the gold was confiscated.
6. Petitioner in the letter dated 8th October, 2010, had stated that he had not received any show cause notice and had never appointed Mr. J.K. Srivastava, Advocate to appear and file appeals/revision. The WPC 4724/2011 Page 3 of 5 petitioner, thereafter wrote two letters dated 23rd December, 2010 and 20th March, 2011, but the respondent vide their letters dated 16th January, 2011 and 21st April, 2011, repudiated the stand and stance of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has submitted that he had not appointed J.K. Srivastava, Advocate to appear in the matter. He has submitted that no Show Cause Notice was issued and there was no order of confiscation and the appellate order and the revision order were not received by him.
8. We do not find any merit in the said contentions. It is difficult to presume and accept that an Advocate would have entered appearance, filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice and then preferred an appeal and a revision petition without instructions. Filing and appearance before the appellate authority and in revision entails expenditure, time and effort. A legal professional would not act, file and prosecute an appeal or revision without instructions in a matter of this nature. It is not possible to accept that the petitioner would have remained quite for over 17 years. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was WPC 4724/2011 Page 4 of 5 prosecuted for offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, was well guided and had access to legal advice. The contentions raised are an after thought, deserve no credence and are to be rejected.
9. Keeping in view time gap, the aforesaid facts and the conduct of the petitioner, we are not inclined to issue notice on the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE August 04, 2011 Kkb WPC 4724/2011 Page 5 of 5