Bombay High Court
The Commissioner Of Customs vs Mohammed Mohsin Mobin Shaikh And Anr on 11 November, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:48520-DB
Digitally signed
by MULEY
SHUBHAM
MULEY PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAO 2025.11.13 19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
13:25:59
+0530
Shubham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5452 OF 2021
The Commissioner of Customs ...Petitioner
Versus
Mohammed Mohsin Mobin Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr. Karan Adik i/by Sangeeta Yadav and Maya Majumdar for the
Petitioners.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED : 11 November 2025
Oral Judgment :- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Adik for the Petitioner.
2. On 29 September 2025 we made the following order:-
"P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. There is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents, though
Mr. Adik states that the Respondents have been served and even
an affidavit of service has been filed in terms of this Court's
order dated 17 November 2022, since no notice for final
disposal appears to have been given in this Petition.
3. We now direct a fresh notice to the Respondents, returnable
on 04 November 2025 for final disposal of the Petition at the
admission stage. The Petitioner is to once again take steps to
serve the Respondents informing them about this order and file
19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
an affidavit of service.
4. Stand over to 11 November 2025 for final disposal at the
admission stage.
5. Mr. Adik states that he will prepare a short synopsis and
tender the same on the next occasion."
3. Mr. Adik places on record proof of service. Despite service, the
Respondents have not appeared in this matter.
4. Accordingly, we issue the Rule and make it returnable
immediately, in accordance with our above order dated 29
September 2025, in which we posted this matter on 4 November
2025 for final disposal at the admission stage.
5. The Petitioner, i.e. the Commissioner of Customs, Pune,
challenges the impugned order dated 22 June 2020 passed by the
Revisional Authority (RA), allowing the first Respondent's Revision
Application and setting aside the confiscation order. This was a
challenge to the first appellate authority's order dated 2 March 2017,
by which the first appellate authority had set aside the confiscation
order but ordered the release of the confiscated goods subject to
payment of fines and penalties.
6. The Petitioner herein had also challenged the first appellate
authority's order dated 2 March 2017 by arguing that the
confiscation order made by the adjudicating authority should not
have been set aside. This was vide Revision Application No.380/20-
D/B/WZ/2017-RA-CX.
19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
7. This Petition was instituted on 27 May 2021, urging that the
impugned order dated 22 June 2020 made by the RA in the Revision
Application No.371/18/B/2014-RA be set aside and the matter be
remanded to the RA so that both the Revision Applications could be
heard and disposed of by the RA simultaneously.
8. During the pendency of this Petition, however, the RA took up
the Petitioner's Revision Application No.380/20-D/B/WZ/2017-RA-
CX and disposed of it vide order dated 30 September 2021. The RA,
in its order dated 30 September 2021, held that the first appellate
authority's order warranted interference and accordingly set it aside.
The RA vide the order of 30 September 2021 restored the
adjudicating authority's order of confiscation of the smuggled goods,
i.e. the gold.
9. As a result, there are now two conflicting orders. The first is
the impugned order dated 22 June 2022 disposing of the first
Respondent's Revision Application No. 371/18/B/2014-RA, which
upheld the first appellate authority's order dated 2 March 2017. The
second is the order dated 30 September 2021 made in Revision
Application No. 380/20-D/B/WZ/2017-RA-CX setting aside the first
appellate authority's order dated 2 March 2017. Such an anomalous
situation could and should have been avoided by simultaneously
considering the two revision Applications against the first appellate
authority's order dated 2 March 2017.
10. The Commissioner of Customs filed an additional affidavit on
16 November 2022, in which the facts relating to the two
19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
contradictory orders were succinctly pointed out. The affidavit prays
that this Court remove the ambiguity arising out of these two
inconsistent orders by passing appropriate orders " as it deems fit and
appropriate."
11. The contents of the additional affidavit dated 16 November
2022 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
"ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT BY PETITIONER
I, Yashodhan Arvind Wanage, S/o Arvind Wanage aged about 53
years posted as Commissioner of Customs, Pune having my office
at 4th Floor, GST Bhavan, 41/A, Sassoon Road, Pune-411001, do
hereby on solemn affirmation say as follows:
1. I am the petitioner in the above matter.
2. The above Petition is filed to set aside the order No. 78/2020-
CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 22.06.2020 passed in Revision
Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 being No.
371/18/B/2017-RA and remand the matter back to the file of the
Revision Authority and hear it along with Revision Application
No. 380/20-D/B/WZ/2017-RA-CX filed by the petitioner herein.
The order No. 78/2020-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated
22.06.2020 is passed against the department.
Copy of the above order No. 78/2020-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI
dated 22.06.2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-"A"
3. I say that the present writ petition was filed on 21.06.2021
4. I further say that during pendency of this present writ petition
the Revision Authority has disposed of the Revision Application
19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
No. 380/20-D/B/WZ/2017-RA-CX filed by the petitioner herein
vide order No.240/2021-CUS (WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated
30.09.2021. The order No. 240/2021-CUS (WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI
dated 30.09.2021 is in favour of the department.
Copy of the above order No. 240/2021-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI
dated 30.09.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-"B"
5. The Revision Applications were filed by both the parties in the
year 2017. The competent authority vide Order No. 78/2020-
CUS (WZ)/ASRA /Mumbai dated 22.06.2020 decided the issue,
taking into consideration only the RA filed by the party. The
Competent Authority while issuing Order No. 78/2020 dated
22.06.2020 completely ignored the RA filed by the Department
and decided the RA of the party. The petitioner vide letter F.No.
GEN/REV/RA/54/2022-Rev-O/o Commr-Cus -Pune dated
28.12.2020 (Annexed as Exhibit-"C") requested the Assistant
Commissioner (RA), Mumbai to inform status of Department's
appeal in the matter. The competent authority took up the RA
filed by the Department for decision and basing on the
submissions made by the department and personal hearing on
23.9.2021, the Revision Authority vide Order No. 240/2021 dated
30.09.2021, set aside the Order of the Appellate Authority and
restored the Order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority.
As such two contradictory orders were passed by the Revision
Authority as on 30.09.2021.
6. This Affidavit is being filed to bring on record the above facts
and the order No. 240/2021-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated
30.09.2021. Department will be grateful if the ambiguity caused
19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
by the contradictory orders be removed by this Hon'ble Court by
passing appropriate order as it deems fit and proper.
7. Statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief."
12. Having considered the submissions made by Mr Adik and the
additional affidavit transcribed above, we are satisfied that the fairest
manner to deal with this anomaly of two contradictory orders would
be to set aside both the orders and remand the Revision Applications
instituted by the Petitioner and the first Respondent to the RA for
fresh adjudication. In fact, this was the relief sought for by the
Petitioner in this Petition. The Commissioner of Customs also states
this in paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit prescribed above.
13. Merely setting aside the impugned order would not be very fair
to the first Respondent. It is possible that the first Respondent has
not attended the hearing in this Petition, given the fact that the order
setting aside the confiscation was not upset. Similarly, we are not
aware whether the first Respondent has been served with the
revisional authority's order dated 30 September 2021. In any event,
the revisional authority should not have passed such contradictory
orders and should have heard both the cross-revision petitions
against the same order simultaneously.
14. Therefore, in the exercise of our extraordinary and equitable
jurisdiction, we set aside the impugned order dated 22 June 2020
and the order dated 30 June 2021, so that the two contradictory
19-WP-5452-2021.DOCX
orders do not torment the record in this matter. Further, in the
interest of justice, we restore the two Revision Applications, i.e. the
Revision Application instituted by the first Respondent and the
Petitioner herein, to the file of the RA and direct the RA to dispose of
these two Revision Applications simultaneously in accordance with
law and on their own merits.
15. In disposing of the Revision Applications, the RA should not be
influenced by the contradictory orders dated 22 June 2020 and 30
September 2021, which, in any event, we have now set aside. All
contentions of all parties on merits are left open for the decision by
the revisional authorities in the first instance.
16. The RA must issue notices to all parties, including the first
Respondent, provide an opportunity for hearing to both parties, and
dispose of the Revision Applications challenging the first appellate
authority's order dated 2 March 2017 as quickly as possible, and in
any event within six months from the date of uploading this order.
17. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any
order for costs.
18. All concerned must act upon an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M. S. Sonak, J.)
