Jyoti Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs Inland Container Depot (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that writ against OIO directing absolute confiscation of goods is not maintainable since use of the IEC of the Petitioner cannot prima facie be accepted to be merely an innocent instance of misuse.
Facts- The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order in Original dated 27th March, 2025 by which absolute confiscation of goods has been directed and penalties have also been imposed on the Petitioner. Petitioner has mainly contested unauthorised use of its IEC code for clandestine import of goods like poppy seeds and areca nuts.
Conclusion- Held that the matter required a deeper probe which led to the investigation and then the passing of the impugned order. The Order-in-Original dated 27th March, 2025 clearly shows that there is some kind of a group which is operating for smuggling of poppy seeds and areca nuts. The use of the IEC of the Petitioner cannot prima facie be accepted to be merely an innocent instance of misuse. Moreover, the Petitioner is claiming innocence on the one hand, the exporter has filed a writ petition before this Court but it is not clear as to who has acted for the exporter as the authorised person claims to have no knowledge of the case. Only the advocate who filed the writ petition appears to have had knowledge of the case. The entire matter required a deeper probe, after which the Petitioner has been found to be complicit. There appears to be clandestine import of goods like poppy seeds and areca nuts after indulging in misdeclaration. Hence, various facts would have to be gone into. Thus, the Court is not inclined to entertain a writ petition. The Petitioner is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law against the Order-in-Original by way of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with the requisite pre-deposit.
