Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010057852026 2026:GAU-AS:5118- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/102/2026 MANIK CHAND AND SONS (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT CHIRISTIAN BASTI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005, ASSAM AND REP. BY SHRI KRISHNAN KUMAR SONI, ONE OF THE DIRECTOS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENTOF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SHILLONG COMMISSIONERATE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS LGBI AIRPORT OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOM HOUSE NILOMANI PHUKAN ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI 5 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/6 4:THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS LGBI AIRPORT OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE NILOMANI PHUKAN ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI 5 ASSAM. 5:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE NER SHILLONG. 6:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NER SHILLON For the appellant : Mr. D. Saikia, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Ms. M.L. Gope and Ms. N. Hawelia, Advocates For the respondent : Mr. S.C. Keyal, S.C., Customs – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 07-04-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant, which is a Company run by a well established Jewellery family, which has been operating for several years and is registered under the GST and other tax Page No.# 3/6 laws. In the year 2017, while an employee of the company was flying domestically from Guwahati to Kolkata, he was purportedly intercepted at the airport at Guwahati on the ground of carrying some old gold and diamond-studded jewelleries, which were claimed to be belonging to the customers of the company. The purpose of the transport was stated to be repairing, polishing and cutting work of the jewellery. The employee, in question was having in his possession delivery challans and other documents, which apparently did not exactly match with the demands of papers by the Customs department. The employee was detained, questioned and the entire consignment of jewellery was seized under the Customs Act, 1962. 3. According to the appellant, the seizure was bad as there was no evidence of the ornaments not being domestic or used items and having been imported. The seizure also was questioned on the ground of it having been made beyond the customs area. 4. The records reveal that the seizure of the afore-noted jewellery was challenged by the appellant vide WP(C) 6204/2017 wherein, on 22.09.2017, an interim order of release of the articles, on furnishing security, was passed. The seized jewellery was returned to the appellant on furnishing a security of Rs.11,17,530/- against the valuation of the jewellery at Rs.44,70,121/-. While the writ petition was pending, in the meantime, the respondents/Customs department issued a show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018 to the appellant, proposing confiscation of the afore-noted goods. This notice was questioned by the appellant in WP(C) Page No.# 4/6 1788/2019 on the grounds of limitation as also on the issue of jurisdiction. However, WP(C) 1788/2019 was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2019 on the ground that there was no jurisdictional or legal defect in the show- cause notice dated 16.08.2018. This order was passed at the motion stage itself with a direction to the respondents to fix another date for personal hearing of the appellant after issuing notice to them in that regard. 5. This Court has been informed today that the next date for the appellant to appear pursuant to the notice is 08.04.2026, i.e. tomorrow. 6. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that WP(C) 6204/2017 challenging the seizure was dismissed primarily on the ground of a Coordinate Bench not interfering with the issuance of notice proposing confiscation, thus making the seizure not liable to be challenged. 7. While dismissing the afore-noted writ petition, the learned Single Judge, in this instance, observed that with the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the issuance of notice for confiscation, which order had not been assailed by the appellant, with the effect of such order having attained finality, there could be no consideration on the merits of the seizure. 8. The appellant has submitted that this is a situation where it could not be decided by the authorities whether the cart is before the horse or the horse is before the cart. 9. A bare reading of the judgment impugned in the present appeal Page No.# 5/6 reflects the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the appellant shall have an opportunity of questioning the seizure too in the proceeding initiated and show-cause notice issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the goods. Without permitting the appellant of doing that, we are of the view, the appellant would stand choked and strangulated without any opportunity to him to explain that the seizure was bad. 10. The observations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment clearly reflects that no consideration was made with respect to the correctness of the seizure on the ground that the appellant has already been noticed against the proposed confiscation which, in our opinion, is only a subsequent proceeding. 11. Since the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant against the seizure were not entertained by the learned Single Judge, in all fitness of things, we are of the view that while responding to the notice for confiscation, the appellant ought to be entitled to question the very seizure of old used ornaments belonging to the customers of the appellant company. 12. We, thus, dispose off this appeal with an observation that since the issue regarding the correctness of the seizure proceeding was not entertained by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 6204/2017 on the sole ground of the challenge to the issuance of notice having failed in the first instance, the appellant shall be given an opportunity of explaining his cause, i.e. to question the correctness of the seizure and ultimately, the decision to proceed for confiscating the same. Page No.# 6/6 13. We order accordingly. 14. To provide reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present his cause, it is expected that if any request is made before the authorities for extension of time for the appellant to meaningfully appear in the confiscation proceeding, the same shall be granted. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant