Customs Failed to Act on Remand Despite Representation: Madras HC Orders Adjudication of Gold Seizure in Four Weeks [Read Order]

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court directed the Customs Department to complete adjudication of a gold seizure case within four weeks, after finding that no action had been taken despite an appellate remand and a written representation by the petitioner.

The Court held that the delay in adjudication was unjustified and issued a writ of mandamus to ensure timely disposal. The ruling underscores the binding nature of appellate directions and the duty of adjudicating authorities to act without undue delay.

The petitioner, Jignesh Kishorbhai Patadiya, challenged the inaction of the Customs Department in adjudicating a gold seizure case remanded by the appellate authority.

The dispute arose from the confiscation of gold under the Customs Act, 1962, which had been set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) with a direction for fresh adjudication.

Following the remand, the petitioner submitted a representation to the adjudicating authority, requesting prompt disposal of the matter.

However, no steps were taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to initiate or conclude the adjudication process. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Customs Department to act on the appellate order and dispose of the matter within a reasonable timeframe.

The Customs Department, in its response, did not dispute the existence of the remand order or the petitioner’s representation.

However, it failed to provide any justification for the delay or indicate a timeline for adjudication. The Court took serious note of this omission and observed that the adjudicating authority had a statutory obligation to act on the appellate directions without delay.

The Court emphasised that appellate orders are binding on subordinate authorities and must be implemented in letter and spirit. It held that failure to act on a remand order not only undermines the adjudicatory process but also causes prejudice to the affected party.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had taken proactive steps by submitting a representation and that the continued inaction amounted to administrative indifference.

In issuing the writ of mandamus, the bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to complete the adjudication within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

It also cautioned that any further delay would be viewed seriously and could invite judicial consequences.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates