Case Law Details
Hitesh Nagwani Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Introduction: This analysis delves into the case of “Hitesh Nagwani vs Commissioner of Customs” heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The case involves the concealment of a CESTAT’s order of confiscation and the subsequent imposition of a Rs. 25,000 cost. The petitioner seeks the release of seized currency based on the CESTAT’s order, while the respondent contends against it.
Analysis: The petitioner, Hitesh Nagwani, challenges the respondent’s refusal to comply with the Final Order No.50707/2022 issued by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, related to the confiscation of seized currency. The case pertains to the importer M/s Rudras Overseas, who imported nutrition supplements and paid custom duty. However, the goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, leading to the confiscation of currency and a subsequent legal battle.
The petitioner argues that the CESTAT’s order should be upheld, relying on legal precedents like “Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.” and others. The respondent counters that the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, has issued a final order for confiscation of the currency, rendering the provisional release request moot. The respondent suggests that the petitioner can appeal the final order instead.
The court observes that while the CESTAT’s order favored provisional release, a subsequent final order of confiscation has been issued. As a result, the court emphasizes the principle of judicial discipline and concludes that the CESTAT’s order cannot be complied with due to the final order’s presence. The court dismisses the petition and imposes a Rs. 25,000 cost on the petitioner for suppressing the knowledge of the final confiscation order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
