In Writ Petition No. 10267 of 2023 -MP HC- Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses writ petition seeking provisional release of goods, imposes cost of Rs. 25,000 on petitioner for suppressing fact of final confiscation order
Justice Vivek Rusia & Justice Pranay Verma [31-07-2023]

Read Order: Hitesh Nagwani V. Commissioner of Customs, Indore

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, August 17, 2023: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected a writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking the provisional release of confiscated goods by the Customs Department. The Court discovered that the petitioner had failed to disclose that a final confiscation order had already been issued, resulting in the imposition of a Rs. 25,000 cost on the petitioner.

The factual matrix of the case was that the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, after being dissatisfied with the actions of the Commissioner of Customs, Indore, in not complying with the Final Order dated August 18, 2022, issued by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). However, the Commissioner of Customs submitted that the petitioner's application for provisional release, along with relevant documents, had been forwarded to the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, who was authorized to release the currency according to the CESTAT Final Order. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, issued a final order of absolute confiscation of the currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. Given that the final adjudication had taken place, the petitioner's request for provisional release could no longer be entertained.

The bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pranay Verma noted that the petitioner's counsel did not dispute that the petitioner was unaware of the order passed against them at the time of filing the petition. The bench remarked that the petitioner should have disclosed the Final Order, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The bench held that since the currency had been conclusively determined to be the proceeds of smuggled goods and was subject to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, the request for provisional release was no longer feasible.

The bench stated that the Tribunal's order regarding provisional release had become final. However, before the goods/currency could be released, the final order of confiscation had been issued, rendering compliance with the provisional release order unattainable.

In light of these circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed. Notably, as the petitioner had deliberately omitted disclosing the issuance of the final confiscation order, which was within his knowledge, while seeking the provisional release of goods, the Court imposed a cost on the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to deposit the imposed cost with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority.