Madras High Court
Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd vs The Additional Director General on 28 March, 2022
W.A.No.824 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.824 of 2021
Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director Mr.Shafeekh V.S
Door No.New 72/Old No.169, North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
...Appellant
Versus
1.The Additional Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit,
No.17, Gopala Krishna Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017.
2.The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport – Import),
Chennai – III,
Customs House,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
...Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set
aside the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.No.10247 of 2020.
1/6
W.A.No.824 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran,
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
The writ petitioner viz., M/s.Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd., is
the appellant herein and the order of the learned Judge dated 22.01.2021
passed in W.P.No.10247 of 2020, is under challenge in this writ appeal.
2.According to the appellant, they are engaged in the business of
selling gold and diamond jewellery for the past two decades. On
27.03.2013, based on the voluntary statement of one Mahaveer that he had
sold smuggled Singapore gold jewellery to the appellant, the business
premises of the appellant was inspected by the officials of the first
respondent and gold weighing 5541.92 gms valued at Rs.1,54,28,705/- @
Rs.2,084/- per gram, was seized on the premise that they are liable for
confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, (in short, “the
W.A.No.824 of 2021
Act”). Subsequently, the appellant preferred WP.No.18833 of 2013, seeking
provisional release of the seized goods. By order dated 17.11.2014, the said
writ petition was disposed of, directing the Commissioner of Customs
(AIR), Chennai, to adjudicate the claim made in the show cause notice dated
16.09.2013 subject to the condition that all the 19 noticees should
participate and co-operate with the adjudication. Challenging the said order,
the appellant filed an appeal in WA.No.377 of 2016, which was dismissed,
by judgment dated 28.07.2016. Thereafter, stating that two of the
co-noticees viz., R.Mahaveer Pipada and Ashish Mundhra, obtained an
interim order dated 29.04.2014 in MP.Nos.3 and 3 of 2014 in WP.Nos.3856
and 3857 of 2014 for release of the gold seized, the appellant filed
WP.No.10247 of 2020 seeking a direction for return of the seized gold
under section 110(2), since adjudication has not been completed even after
seven years. The said writ petition was dismissed, in the light of the order of
the Division Bench dated 28.07.2016 in WA.No.377 of 2016, by order dated
22.01.2021, which is impugned herein.
3.At the outset, this court is not inclined to test the correctness of the
order impugned herein, as the learned Judge, after analysing the factual
W.A.No.824 of 2021
matrix involved in the case, has correctly dismissed the claim of the
appellant, on the ground that no SLP was filed challenging the order of the
Division Bench in WA.No.377 of 2016, which has attained finality; and the
prayer made was only a repetition of the prayer in WP.No.18833 of 2013
and no legal distinction was made out between the two reliefs sought.
4.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant is ready and willing to appear before the adjudicating
authority, for adjudication; and that, the goods seized are lying with the
department from the year 2013 onwards and hence, appropriate direction
may be issued to them for early completion of the adjudication proceedings.
It is also submitted that the appellant has already made a request to release
the goods on payment of the amount demanded, but the same is pending
without any consideration.
5.On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents, on written instructions dated 25.03.2022 from the
Superintendent (CAU-CH-IV), submitted that the adjudication proceedings
would be completed within a period of three months. It is further submitted
W.A.No.824 of 2021
that the authority concerned would consider the application of the appellant
seeking release of the gold seized on payment of any amount demanded, if
not considered so far, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law.
6.This court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,
directs the adjudicating authority to complete the adjudication and pass
appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an
opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, as expeditiously as
possible, in any event, not later than 15.06.2022. This writ appeal stands
disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
28.03.2022
mrr
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Judgement (or) Non-Speaking Judgement
W.A.No.824 of 2021
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
mrr
To
1.The Additional Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit,
No.17, Gopala Krishna Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017.
2.The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport – Import),
Chennai – III,
Customs House,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
W.A.No.824 of 2021
28.03.2022
