Page 44 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

A198 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

LANGUAGE OF THE DIVINE IS SILENCE
By
G. Jayaprakash
ADVOCATE

This paper is a case study of the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Shri Umar Syed v.
Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai [2019 (368)
E.L.T. 385 (Mad.)] for refund of the sales proceeds of
gold/gold ornaments that had been confiscated and al-
lowed redemption for re-export. The gold/gold orna-
ments could not be redeemed due to its disposal (sale) by Customs authorities
within two months from the date of issue of the order. When goods are confis-
cated, the title of the goods rest with the Central Government, says Section 126 of
the Customs Act, 1962. If the proper officer (adjudicating authority) allowed re-
demption of the goods for re-export on payment of fine, the order need not speci-
fy anything about the duty payable on the goods imported since the same is al-
lowed to be re-exported for which no duty is payable. But when such goods are
sold for home consumption, the law mandates payment of applicable duty and
same is liable to be recovered from the sale proceeds.
After reading the case law, certain doubts arose in mind and I persuaded
myself to ignore it being a practicing lawyer. But the master’s voice echoed :
“People who want to rise
above a well cooked meal and a well
tailored garment, are out of their
spiritual minds.”
The factual matrix of the case is that the gold/gold jewellery [the quanti-
ty or value-cif or market-is not specified] were seized when the petitioner arrived
at Hyderabad Airport from Dubai. On adjudication, as per O-I-O dated 15-2-
2019, the gold/gold ornaments were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a
fine of ` 70, 00,000 and penalty of ` 20,00,000 and the order attained finality when
the writ petition was filed. The cause of action for the writ petition was that
when the petitioner approached the Customs authorities for redemption of the
gold/gold ornaments seized and confiscated, a communication dated 22-4-2019
informed that the seized gold were sold for ` 2,48,21,820/-. Thus the redemption
option stands foreclosed.
It appears to be quite intriguing to note that the seized gold were dis-
posed of before the expiry of the appeal/Review period prescribed under the
Customs Act, 1962. It is equally intriguing that the smuggling case was detected
at Hyderabad Airport, but the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai be-
came the respondent and the Hon’ble High Court of Madras attained the writ
jurisdiction. Whether the Airport of arrival printed as “Hyderabad” is a typo-
graphical error and the petitioner actually arrived at “Chennai” Airport cannot
be ascertained for lack of detailed factual narration of events in the order cited.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  44