Kerala High Court
Shamna Thasni Pattani vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 7 April, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:29960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32351 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAMNA THASNI PATTANI,
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMED AL AMEEN,
ERANGODEN HOUSE, CHEMMANIYODE P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325
BY ADV CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673647
2 MANISH VIJAY, IRS JOINT COMMISSIONER,
CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE, KOZHIKODE,
CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PIN - 673647
BY ADV J.VISHNU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:29960
W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P1 order of the first respondent
confiscating jewellery of the petitioner having a total weight of
998 gms. to the value of Rs.45,64,533/-, apart from imposing a
penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. According to the petitioner, on 02.08.2022, the
Superintendent of Customs (Air Intelligence Unit) intercepted the
petitioner at the exit gate of the Calicut International Airport on her
arrival from Saudi Arabia. Thereafter, on a personal search and
interrogation, she was found to be in possession of gold jewellery of
two gold chains, six bangles, two gold bracelets and one pair of gold
anklets. Subsequently, despite notices issued to the petitioner, there
was no appearance, and finally, the impugned order was issued,
confiscating the entire gold and also imposing penalty on the
petitioner.
3. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the
circumstance that despite engaging an Advocate to represent her, the
impugned order was passed ex-parte, without any representation by
2025:KER:29960
the Advocate. It is also submitted that though requisite fees was paid
to the Advocate for representing her, and each time the notice was
received by the petitioner for hearing, the Advocate would submit that
he had appeared, it was only after Exhibit-P1 order was served on the
petitioner, did the petitioner realise that she was not represented.
Even thereafter, when the Advocate was contacted, he intimated that
an appeal has to be preferred. Later, when petitioner verified to her
honor, she realised that the appeal had not been filed. According to
the petitioner, unless the impugned order is set aside, she would be
put to serious prejudice, as a proper opportunity of hearing was not
granted, and the impugned order issued in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent
pointing out that three notices were issued to the petitioner to her
personal address, and despite those notices, there was no
representation on her behalf. Finally, the impugned order was passed
in accordance with law and there is no cause for any interference.
5. I have heard Sri. Cherian Mathew, the learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Sri. J. Vishnu, the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
6. On a perusal of Exhibit-R2(a), Exhibit-R2(b) and
Exhibit-R2(c), it is seen that petitioner was issued with three notices
2025:KER:29960
intimating the date of hearing. It is also not disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had received those notices.
Petitioner contended that whenever notices were issued, she used to
contact her Advocate, and he convinced her that he had appeared o
the earlier date of hearing. Even when the impugned order was
received, the Advocate had agreed to file an appeal. Taking note of
the above circumstances, it cannot be held that the impugned order
was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, since
petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to appear.
7. Be that as it may, petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian
residing in Saudi Arabia, she is alleged to have been intercepted while
exiting the airport. 998 gms. of gold, which she was apparently
wearing, has been directed to be confiscated. Taking note of the
above circumstance, I am of the view that the petitioner must be
given an opportunity to avail her statutory remedy of filing an appeal
atleast.
8. Since Exhibit-P1 is dated 31.08.2023, the opportunity for
preferring an appeal has been lost. The writ petition was filed only on
09.09.2024 and has been pending since then. The statutory period for
filing an appeal is only 60 days, apart from a further period of 30 days
to condone the delay. Considering the peculiar circumstance of the
case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a housewife,
2025:KER:29960
I am of the view that apart from excluding the period spent by the
petitioner in pursuing this writ petition, the period from 31.08.2023,
i.e., the date of the order, till 09.09.2024 also ought to be excluded,
while calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal.
9. Accordingly, while declining to interfere wit the impugned
order, petitioner is given the liberty to pursue the appellate remedy in
accordance with law. The period from 31.08.2023 i.e., the date of
order till today shall stand excluded while calculating the period of
limitation. If any appeal is preferred, in accordance with law, the
Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jka/07.04.25.
2025:KER:29960
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32351/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DATED
29/11/2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL
HEARING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 08.05.2023
EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL
HEARING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 15.05.2023
EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL
HEARING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 26.05.2023
