Case Details: Kushal Ram vs. Commissioner of Customs (2025) 36 Centax 124 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Anupam Anand, Ms Akanksha, Ashish Dev & Akshit Saini, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the confiscation of goods imported as baggage, including two silver-coated bracelets weighing 100 grams, one gold kada weighing 100 grams, and four iPhones. It was contended that neither show cause notice was issued nor was any personal hearing granted, and sought relief under writ jurisdiction. The matter was placed before the High Court.
CESTAT Held
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction could not be exercised as an appeal against the adjudication order was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was observed that, given the nature of goods and procedural stage, the petitioner’s remedy lay in the appeal process. The Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits after affording him a personal hearing, in accordance with Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
