Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Pramod Kumar Singhal vs The Directorate Of Revenue ... on 9 July, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8270/2024
SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SINGHAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Ms.
Jahanvi Garg and Mr. Raghav
Garg, Advocates.
versus
THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with
Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr.
Ishank Jha, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 09.07.2024
CM APPL. 33997/2024 (Ex)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8270/2024
1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To direct the respondents to supply copy of statement and documents signed by petitioner.
(ii) To quash the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Shri Ravikesh Tripathy, Deputy Director.
(iii) Direct the respondent no. 1 to supply copy of statement dated 25.04.2024, 22.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 and supply copy of signed documents of petitioner.
(iv) Direct respondent no. 1 to pass final order in this case.
(v) Issue any other further order /orders or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate on the facts and This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2024 at 22:20:12 the circumstances of this case."
2. The challenge principally is to the order of 06 May 2024, in terms of which the prayer of the writ petitioner for release of the seized gold has come to be rejected. We note that while passing the aforesaid order, the adjudicating authority has in paragraph 5 held as follows:-
"5. The gold in question was seized vide Seizure memo dated 20.02.2024 as the consignments were found without any licit documents (GST Invoice/ Delivery Challan) and it appeared that gold articles/jewellery are either made of smuggled gold liable for confiscation or have been smuggled itself and are liable fur confiscation. As per section 123 of the customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving that the seized goods are not smuggled goods is on the owner of the goods. As you did not participate or cooperate during the investigation, you have not discharged your burden of proving that the gold in question is not smuggled gold. Therefore, your application dated 26.02.2024 is considered disposed off due to non-compliance. Therefore, there is no basis to release the gold at this stage."
3. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts as have come to be noticed, we find no justification to interfere with the said order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Insofar as the prayer for the supply of statements and documents are concerned, since the adjudication proceedings are ongoing, let the adjudicating authority deal with the aforesaid request and proceed further in accordance with law. The adjudication proceedings may be disposed of with due expedition.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
JULY 9, 2024/vp This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/07/2024 at 22:20:12