Commissioner of Customs Vs Shehbaz Nasir Khan Rizwani (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered an application seeking a stay on a CESTAT order that had granted redemption of confiscated gold to a passenger. The appeal had already been admitted on two substantial questions of law: first, whether the CESTAT had jurisdiction to decide the matter when the order in appeal was revisable under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, and second, whether the Tribunal’s order was perverse for ignoring facts suggesting that the respondent, being a frequent flyer with around ninety short visits abroad between 2014 and May 2019, was not an eligible passenger to carry gold. The High Court noted that the issue also involved determining whether the gold constituted “prohibited goods” under the Foreign Trade Policy and relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, read with Section 2(33) of the Customs Act.
The impugned CESTAT order had held that although the respondent was ineligible as a passenger and the gold was liable to confiscation, confiscation without providing an option for redemption was not a valid exercise of authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal granted redemption on payment of a fine of ₹1,25,000 and reduced the penalty from ₹2,50,000 to ₹50,000. According to the Tribunal, gold ornaments are not restricted for import, and the appeal concerned only the respondent’s access to the confiscated goods rather than the legality of confiscation itself.
