Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to quash the Customs Commissioner’s order confiscating 36 gold bars (weighing 4197 grams) and Rs 2.85 lakh in cash from two brothers and an airline staffer who tried to smuggle the same from Dubai in January this year.
Dismissing the petitions by airline staffer James Jeeson John and brothers Naresh Pahuja and Mukesh Pahuja, the HC said they tried to smuggle gold from Dubai and had “no intention to declare the gold in their possession” to the Customs authorities. A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain noted that there was sufficient evidence of smuggling and non-compliance with legal procedures.
Customs authorities seized the gold from passenger Wakas Abdul Hamid Shaikh as he attempted to hand over the package to John. Despite being on the same flight, Mukesh did not claim ownership at the time. He later presented a purchase invoice dated May 3, 2015, during the adjudication proceedings.
The Customs authorities, however, found the invoice unconvincing, noting that it was produced only after the seizure. Furthermore, no payment proof for the gold mentioned in the invoice was provided.
Mukesh’s counsel argued that the invoice proved ownership and that the confiscation order violated natural justice, as the petitioners were not adequately allowed to cross-examine witnesses. However, the Court disagreed, stating that all legal procedures had been followed and the petitioners were given ample opportunity to present their case.
The Court highlighted that concurrent findings by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revisional authority supported the confiscation. These findings pointed to a conspiracy to smuggle gold using contradictory and belated claims. The Court also emphasized the petitioners’ lack of intention to declare the gold and their attempt to evade Customs laws.
The Court found no merit in the argument that Mukesh was denied the option of paying a redemption fine to reclaim the gold. It noted that the modus operandi revealed deliberate attempts to bypass the law, warranting absolute confiscation. “The Petitioners attempted to abuse this process and hoodwink the law. Only upon detection were frivolous and belated contentions raised,” the court remarked.
“There are certain observations about the complicity of the airline staff. However, we refrain from taking cognisance of such observations because, even independent of such observations, we are satisfied that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order,” the bench said while rejecting the petitions.
