2025:KER:29960 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 32351 OF 2024 PETITIONER: SHAMNA THASNI PATTANI, AGED 44 YEARS W/O. MUHAMMED AL AMEEN, ERANGODEN HOUSE, CHEMMANIYODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325 BY ADV CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673647 2 MANISH VIJAY, IRS JOINT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE, KOZHIKODE, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PIN - 673647 BY ADV J.VISHNU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29960 W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P1 order of the first respondent confiscating jewellery of the petitioner having a total weight of 998 gms. to the value of Rs.45,64,533/-, apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. According to the petitioner, on 02.08.2022, the Superintendent of Customs (Air Intelligence Unit) intercepted the petitioner at the exit gate of the Calicut International Airport on her arrival from Saudi Arabia. Thereafter, on a personal search and interrogation, she was found to be in possession of gold jewellery of two gold chains, six bangles, two gold bracelets and one pair of gold anklets. Subsequently, despite notices issued to the petitioner, there was no appearance, and finally, the impugned order was issued, confiscating the entire gold and also imposing penalty on the petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the circumstance that despite engaging an Advocate to represent her, the impugned order was passed ex-parte, without any representation by 2025:KER:29960 W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024 -:3:- the Advocate. It is also submitted that though requisite fees was paid to the Advocate for representing her, and each time the notice was received by the petitioner for hearing, the Advocate would submit that he had appeared, it was only after Exhibit-P1 order was served on the petitioner, did the petitioner realise that she was not represented. Even thereafter, when the Advocate was contacted, he intimated that an appeal has to be preferred. Later, when petitioner verified to her honor, she realised that the appeal had not been filed. According to the petitioner, unless the impugned order is set aside, she would be put to serious prejudice, as a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted, and the impugned order issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent pointing out that three notices were issued to the petitioner to her personal address, and despite those notices, there was no representation on her behalf. Finally, the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and there is no cause for any interference. 5. I have heard Sri. Cherian Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. J. Vishnu, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. On a perusal of Exhibit-R2(a), Exhibit-R2(b) and Exhibit-R2(c), it is seen that petitioner was issued with three notices 2025:KER:29960 W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024 -:4:- intimating the date of hearing. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had received those notices. Petitioner contended that whenever notices were issued, she used to contact her Advocate, and he convinced her that he had appeared o the earlier date of hearing. Even when the impugned order was received, the Advocate had agreed to file an appeal. Taking note of the above circumstances, it cannot be held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, since petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to appear. 7. Be that as it may, petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian residing in Saudi Arabia, she is alleged to have been intercepted while exiting the airport. 998 gms. of gold, which she was apparently wearing, has been directed to be confiscated. Taking note of the above circumstance, I am of the view that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to avail her statutory remedy of filing an appeal atleast. 8. Since Exhibit-P1 is dated 31.08.2023, the opportunity for preferring an appeal has been lost. The writ petition was filed only on 09.09.2024 and has been pending since then. The statutory period for filing an appeal is only 60 days, apart from a further period of 30 days to condone the delay. Considering the peculiar circumstance of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a housewife, 2025:KER:29960 W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024 -:5:- I am of the view that apart from excluding the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing this writ petition, the period from 31.08.2023, i.e., the date of the order, till 09.09.2024 also ought to be excluded, while calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal. 9. Accordingly, while declining to interfere wit the impugned order, petitioner is given the liberty to pursue the appellate remedy in accordance with law. The period from 31.08.2023 i.e., the date of order till today shall stand excluded while calculating the period of limitation. If any appeal is preferred, in accordance with law, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jka/07.04.25. 2025:KER:29960 W.P.(C). No.32351 of 2024 -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32351/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DATED 29/11/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL HEARING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.05.2023 EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL HEARING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.05.2023 EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL HEARING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.05.2023