Madras HC Rejects 6-Month Delay Revision Plea, Notes Applicant had Ample time to Contest Gold & Silver Seizure after Surgery [Read Order]

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of a six-month delay in filing a revision application before the Central Government, observing that the petitioner had ample time after undergoing surgery to pursue the case.

The petitioner, Noorul Ayin, had approached the High Court challenging an Order-in-Appeal, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai. The plea also sought a consequential direction to release the seized goods, which included imported gold and silver coins on payment of redemption fine under Section 125of the Customs Act, 1962, which were intended by the petitioner for re-export.

The case stemmed from a seizure conducted at the Chennai domestic airport, where officials intercepted passengers, including Mohamed Ebrahim Amsath Hanifa, Yusaf Hussain Shahul Hameed and Abdul Salam, who were in-bound on a domestic flight from Mumbai. Customs authorities alleged recovery of imported gold and silver coins from their person and luggage and proceeded to seize the same.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original adjudication order leading the petitioner to approach the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

The CESTAT held that the petitioner’s appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal and granted liberty to file a revision petition before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the petitioner filed the revision nearly six months beyond the permissible period, stating that he had undergone a surgical procedure and was under bed rest for a prolonged period of time.

The central government was thus unable to condone this prolonged delay, leading to the present writ petition.

The Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the medical records produced showed that the petitioner underwent surgery on July 12, 2024, and was discharged on July 17, 2024. Since the surgery occurred months after the limitation period expired and the petitioner had been actively contesting the matter before the CESTAT thereafter, the Court held that the medical reason could not justify the delay.

“The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a casual manner, more particularly in a case where the petitioner was actively contesting the case before the CESTAT and had the liberty to file a revision before the Central Government….the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory,” the Court stated.

Accordingly, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition along with the connected miscellaneous petitions.

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