BIM SABT JWELLERY LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated. The relevant facts of the case for its disposal are as follows : -

(2.) APPELLANT herein sent 200 bars of gold of 10 tolas each into this -country to one Ganesh Exports with a direction to its bankers to release documents of import to the said party on collection of payment in cash. Later on, the appellant came to know from its bankers the said Ganesh Exports have not got the documents released from the bank. The appellant therefore started looking for another customer. In the meantime, the customs authorities had started investigation into the case. It appears that a customer was found by the appellant and he even filed a B/E with a Special Import Licence. But the said customer withdrew himself on being scared by the investigation caused by the customs authorities. Accordingly, the appellant unable to find a customer in India, requested for re -export of gold out of India. The customs authority however, refused this prayer. Against this refusal, appellant went to the High Court with a prayer that gold be allowed to be re -exported. This prayer was accepted subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee of an amount equivalent to value of gold and the Customs authorities were allowed to proceed in accordance with law in the case, thereafter. In persuance of the said direction of the High Court, the appellant furnished a bank guarantee to an extent of Rs. 1 crore and delivered it to the customs authority. Even then, the gold was not released to be re -exported. Instead the customs authorities filed a SLP in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. While the said SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Commissioner of Customs concerned at Delhi confiscated the gold after issuing a show cause notice to the appellant through their Advocate who is also appearing before us. Reply to the Show Cause Notice received by the Advocate of the appellant was not given by him under a bona fide belief that the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court. He was of the view that since a personal hearing was bound to be granted under Section 124, he would explain the position personally in the course of hearing. But unfortunately, submits the learned Advocate, the gold was confiscated without any opportunity for personal hearing being granted to the appellant.

(3.) IN view of this act of confiscation, the proceedings before the Supreme Court became infructuous. Hence, the SLP was dismissed as such and the appellant herein was directed to proceed in accordance with law before the appropriate authority. Hence, this appeal before us.