Bombay High Court
Surendra S/O Pundlik Gadling vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 2026
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G.S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:7688-DB
JPP 9. WPL 3326.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3326 OF 2026
Elyas Kastantin ... Petitioner
V/s.
Additional Commissioner
of Customs R & I & Ors. ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Karan Bhosale, with Ms. Neha Bhosale, Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Ms. Anuja Divadkar,
Mr. Ustav Saxena, Mr. Yashwant Singh & Mr. Harsh Sawant, i/b NDB Law, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, with Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra, for the Respondent
nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Umesh Gupta, for
Respondent - DRI.
_______________________________________
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
DATE : 26th MARCH 2026
P.C. :
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for
the following reliefs :-
"(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order, or
Direction directing the Respondents to forthwith release the salt water
pearls valued at Rs.1,61,41,041 confiscated under Order-in-Original
No. ADCP/TK/ADJN/03/2023-24/R&I dated 31.10.2023 by the
Respondent from the Petitioner, for the limited purpose of re-export to
the Petitioner's country of origin, on the basis of redemption fine and
penalties already paid amounting to Rs.78,00,000/- viz
D.D.No.003052 dated 11.11.2025.
(b) Quash and set aside the said Letter dated 11.03.2026 addressed
by the Office of the Commissioner (Preventive), through the Assistant
Commissioner.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:39:09 :::
JPP 9. WPL 3326.2026.doc
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition,
stay the effect and implementation of the said letter dated 11.03.2026
addressed by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),
through the Assistant Commissioner.
(d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 25 th August 2022 a search was
conducted at one Shreeji Jewels in Mumbai wherein natural salt water pearls valued
at Rs.1,61,41,041/- were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Consequent
to such seizure, on 22 nd February 2023, a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner by respondent No.1 - Additional Commissioner of Customs. A show
cause notice was adjudicated by an order dated 31 st October 2023 in terms of the
following operating order which read thus :-
"(a) I order confiscation of the seized natural salt water pearls having
value of Rs.1,61,41,041/- (One crore Sixty One Lakh Forth One
Thousand Forty One Only) seized from the possession of Elyas
Kastantian under Section 111(f), 111(j), and 111(1) of the Customs ac,
1962 read with Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Baggage
Rule, 2016; Section 11(2) of the FT (D & R), 1992 as amended, Rule
14(1) & (2) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. However,
I give an option to pay in lieu of confiscation of the said Pearls, totally
valued at Rs.1,61,41,041/- (one Crore Sixty One Lakh Forty One
Thousand Forty One only), to redeem the subject goods on payment
applicable Customs Duty thereof and redemption fine of
Rs.6000,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) under the provisions of
section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(b) I impose a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) on
Mr. Elyas Kastantin, SURIAN NATIONAL (HOLDER OF
ARMENIAN PP No. BA3520111 and SYRIAN PP No. N
013235346) under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in present
case of seizure of natural slat water pearls having value of
Rs.1,61,41,041/-.
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:39:09 :::
JPP 9. WPL 3326.2026.doc
(c) I impose a penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only)
on Mr. Elyas Kastantin, SYRIAN NATIONAL (HOLDER OF
ARMENIAN PP No. BA 3520111 and SYRIAN PP No. N
013235346) under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 in present
case of seizure of natural salt water pearls having value of
Rs.1,61,41,041/-.
(d) I impose a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) on
Mr. Bhagwati V. Patel under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
in present case of seizure of natural salt water pearls having value of
Rs.161,41,041/-.
(e) I impose a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) on
Mr. Parin Ratanchan Jhaveri under section 112(b) of the Customs Act,
1962 in present case of seizure of natural salt water pearls having value
of Rs.1,61,41,041/-."
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had carried the
proceedings in Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai
Zone-III, who passed an order dated 12 th August 2025 thereby modifying the order
in Order-in-Original by setting aside the imposition of penalty on the petitioner as
imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and by not disturbing the
crux of the Order-in-Original. The operative order passed by Appellate Authority
reads thus :
" I modify the impugned Order to the extent of setting aside the
imposition of penalty on the Appellant under Section 114AA ibid and
upholding the rest of the impugned Order. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly."
4. It is the petitioner's case that consequent to the Order-in-Original as
modified by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner has
deposited the customs duty of Rs.60,00,000/- as also the penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- as
3/6
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:39:09 :::
JPP 9. WPL 3326.2026.doc
also the additional penalty as imposed on the two persons which is Rs.6,00,000/-
each totaling to an amount of Rs.78,00,000/- has already been deposited. On such
premise, the petitioner made an application dated 11 th November 2025 (Exhibit D
page 145 of the paper-book) praying for release of the said goods on payment. A
copy of the Demand Draft by which the payment is made is also annexed to the
paper-book at page 148.
5. The case of the petitioner is that once the Order-in-Original was
complied with, there was no warrant in the Department not releasing the goods in
question. In support of their contentions, reliance is placed on decisions : (i)
Collector of Customs vs. Krishna Sales 1, (ii) Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance
Corporation2, (iii) Naseer Majeed vs. Union of India3, (iv) Sayed Althaf Ali vs.
Assistant Commission of Customs4, (v) A.K. Jewellers vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai5 and (vi) R Mohandas vs. Commissioner of Customs 6 to submit that the
orders which are passed by the Appellate Authority are binding on the Government
officers and they are required to be implemented as there is no stay to such orders.
According to the Petitioner, well settled and no contrary position to the Order-in-
Original as modified in the Appellate Authority order could be taken by the
concerned Customs Officers.
6. Mr. Karan Bhosale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner thus making the
1 1994 Supp (3) SCC 73
2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 443
3 2023 SCC OnLine TS 335
4 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 25225
5 2003 (110) ECR 44
6 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 5938
4/6
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:39:09 :::
JPP 9. WPL 3326.2026.doc
above submissions would submit that as on date the petitioner is seeking release of
the seized goods having deposited the entire customs duty as also the penalty as
modified by the Appellate Authority amounting to Rs.78,00,000./- and hence, there
is no prejudice whatsoever to the revenue insofar as the duty is concerned. It is
submitted on the other hand, that there would be a serious prejudice faced by the
petitioner if the goods are detained in such circumstances.
7. Mr. Bhosale has drawn the Court's attention to what has subsequently
transpired namely that the Assistant Commissioner issuing demand notice dated 11 th
March 2026, purportedly issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 122 of the
Customs Act, 1962 thereby passing a demand of Rs. 62,14,201/- as the custom duty.
It is submitted that such demand has no basis as ex facie seen from the figure itself
which has no relation with anything to do with the petitioner. It is submitted that it is
also totally contrary to the original adjudication as also to the Appellate order. It is
submitted that there is no justification whatsoever permitted by the department to
justify as to on what basis the notice has been issued and that too after the duty and
the penalty amounts were deposited by the petitioners.
9. Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the revenue, has fairly not
disputed the orders which are passed in Order-in-Original as also an Appellate order.
He also does not dispute that the concerned officer will be bound by the orders
which are passed by the appellate authority and that the duty of Rs.60,00,000/- along
with penalty of Rs.18,00,000/- has already been deposited.
5/6
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:39:09 :::
JPP 9. WPL 3326.2026.doc
10. The Court is also informed that the Revenue has filed an appeal before
the Tribunal, being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order. However, the
Revenue has neither contended that it has filed any interim application seeking for
stay, nor has it brought to our notice any interim order passed by the Tribunal. Thus,
in our opinion, there is no embargo on the release of the goods, particularly
considering that the full duty has already been paid. In any event, we do not intend
to delve on the pending appeal, as the same is not the issue before us.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner
is correct in its contention that as the petitioner has become entitled for the goods to
be released, as the interest of the revenue has already been secured by deposit of the
duty and consequent payment. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose
of the petition in terms of the following order :
: ORDER :
(i) Respondent no.1 on its confirmation that the amount of Rs. 78,00,000/- [Rs. 60,00,000/- (duty) and the penalty of Rs.18,00,000/-] stands already deposited with the Government treasury, shall release the goods in question for the purpose of re-export. Necessary action in that regard be taken within a period of 10 days from today.
(ii) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( G.S. KULKARNI, J. ) JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2026.03.30 PAWAR 20:36:02 +0530 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:39:09 :::