Case Details: Sabitha Haneefa Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam (2025) 27 Centax 304 (Ker.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Gopinath P., J.
- S/Shri S. Sanjeev Kumar, Lakshmi S. Kumar & A.N. Jyothilekshmi, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Arjun R. Naik, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a nonresident Indian (NRI), arrived from Kuwait on June 2, 2023, via Kannur International Airport. Upon arrival, Customs officials detained two gold bangles weighing 200 grams and imposed a 44% customs duty for clearance. The petitioner contended eligibility for concessional duty benefits, but the Customs Authority insisted on full payment. Despite remitting the duty, the petitioner was not issued a speaking order, leading to the filing of a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. The petitioner asserted that she was entitled to a concessional rate of duty and that the Customs Department failed to issue a reasoned order justifying the demand, violating principles of natural justice and depriving her of an opportunity to appeal effectively. The Customs Department contended that Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not extend to baggage cases and, therefore, did not mandate a speaking order, arguing that the petitioner had the option to challenge the duty demand by filing an appeal before the competent authority.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that, even if Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, does not apply to baggage cases, the Customs Authority must issue a speaking order when determining the petitioner’s liability. The court emphasized that fundamental principles of fair adjudication require Customs Authorities to provide a reasoned order, allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to appeal. The Customs Authority was directed to issue the order within two months, following a proper hearing.
