Case Details: Naresh Girdharilal Pahuja Versus Union of India (2025) 28 Centax 44 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Brijesh Pathak a/w. Pratik Karande, Namasyi Bhanushali, Advs. i/b. Aditya Talpade, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Ms Sangeeta Yadav & Ashutosh Mishra, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was apprehended at the airport while in possession of gold bars, which he was about to hand over to another individual. Initially, the assessee claimed ownership of the gold bars. However, during adjudication, another individual who had been on the same flight from Doha subsequently claimed ownership by producing an invoice that referenced payment within 30 days but was not in possession of the carrier at the time of seizure. The adjudicating authority, Commissioner (Appeals), and Revisional Authority examined the matter and upheld the absolute confiscation of the gold bars, finding that the accused had no intention to declare the gold to Customs authorities and had conspired to smuggle it. The assessee, along with other individuals, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging these findings. The primary contention raised was that the confiscation was disproportionate and that procedural lapses, including a violation of natural justice, had occurred.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that no interference was warranted, as the findings of fact recorded by the three authorities were well-supported by the material on record. The court observed that the accused had no intention to declare the gold bars to Customs and had engaged in an elaborate scheme to smuggle them. The subsequent claim of ownership by another individual was belated and lacked credibility, as the invoice was not available at the time of seizure and there was no evidence of payment. The court emphasized that deterrence was necessary to prevent the misuse of the liberalized facilitation process, which the accused attempted to exploit. Given the absence of perversity in the factual findings and the full opportunity granted to the petitioners, the writ petition was dismissed.
