Bombay High Court
SHWETA KISHINCHAND KODWANIversusUNION OF INDIA THR DEDICATED LEGAL CELL AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate authority is available and must decide the appeal within the stipulated time frames, with the question of restitution left open pending the appeal.
Summary
The petitioner, Shweta Kishinchand Kodwani, challenged an adjudicating authority's order that confiscated her seized gold bangles under the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a personal penalty, while also noting that the seized gold had already been disposed of under section 110. She contended that the appellate authority was not available and that the matter had not been heard, seeking restoration of gold of equivalent value or compensation. The respondents argued that an appeal had been filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and that the appellate process should proceed. The Court held that the appellate authority is indeed available and directed the adjudicating authority to decide the appeal within four weeks, and if appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), to decide within six weeks, leaving the question of restitution open pending the appeal. The petition was ultimately disposed of without a substantive order on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate authority under the Customs Act is available for the petitioner's grievance.
- Whether the adjudicating authority must decide the pending appeal expeditiously.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of gold of equivalent value or monetary compensation for the disposed seized goods.
Legislation cited
- Customs Act, 1962 — s. 110, 111(1), 111(d), 111(m), 112(a), 125
Subjects
- Customs Act
- seizure
- confiscation
- appeal
- disposal of goods
- restoration
- penalty
- redemption fine
Judgment
62-wp 11581-26.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KADAM
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN MACHHINDRA
KADAM WRIT PETITION NO. 11581 OF 2026
Date: 2026.09.08
16:24:40 +0530
Shweta Kishinchand Kodwani … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Anand Sachwani a/w. Mr. Rajesh Shah and Mr. Ganesh Patil for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav and Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra for the Respondents.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed for confiscation of gold in terms of
prayer clause (b). It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even before the goods could be released, the same has
been disposed of. Our attention is invited to the operative order
passed by the adjudicating authority. Para 19 reads thus:-
“i) I order confiscation of the seized gold “24 KT
crude Gold Bangles (10 pcs) having gross & net weight
of 370.030 grams valued at Rs. 19,72,977/- (Rupees
Amk 1/4
62-wp 11581-26.doc
Nineteen Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Nine Hundred
Seventy Seven only)” under section 111 (d), 111(1) and
111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an
option to the noticee to redeem the gold on payment of
redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Thousand only) and duty and any other applicable
charges in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the
Customs Act, 1962 within 120 days of issuance of this
order.
ii) I impose personal penalty amounting to Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Ms. Sweta
Kishinchand Kodwani, holding Indian Passport No.
W7525011, under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act,
1962.
iii) As the seized goods have already been disposed
off under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962; the
amount of sale proceeds realised from the disposal of
the seized goods shall be adjusted towards the
redemption fine, duty, penalty and any other charges
payable in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act,
1962. Any balance amount remaining thereafter shall
be refunded to the noticee and any shortfall shall be
recoverable from her in accordance with law.”
2. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that against the adjudication order, the appeal has been preferred
before the appellate authority. It is the contentions of the petitioner
Amk 2/4
62-wp 11581-26.doc
that the appellate authority is not available and the matter has not
been heard.
3. It is submitted that the appellate authority is now
available. We accordingly direct the adjudicating authority to decide
the appeal expeditiously and in any event within a period of four
weeks from the date of communication of this order on its own
merits, in accordance with law.
4. In para (iii) of the operative order, it has been mentioned
by the adjudicating authority that as seized goods have already been
disposed off, the amount of sale proceeds realised from the disposal
of the seized goods shall be adjusted towards the redemption fine.
5. Against the Order dated 21st April, 2026, at page 92 there
is a remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals). If such an appeal is filed, we request the Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals) to decide the appeal expeditiously and in any
event within a period of six weeks from the date of the presentation
of the appeal considering that the goods of the petitioner were
disposed of even before the issuance of show cause notice.
6. It is open for the petitioner to raise the contention that
the authority ought to restore gold of equivalent value to the
Amk 3/4
62-wp 11581-26.doc
petitioner and compensate the petitioner by making payment of an
amount equivalent to the market value of the said gold as on the
date of deduction. The question as to whether the petitioner would
be entitled to such relief, including any deduction, fine or penalty, is
kept open, as the appeal is pending.
7. The petition is disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 4/4
Checking your session…