Summary
The two Judges differed on access to customs settlement for watches seized after the petitioner crossed the green channel, and on entertaining the statutory relief under Article 32. Krishna Murari J would permit consideration of a settlement application; Sanjay Karol J considered settlement barred and the application not maintainable. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice.
Issues
- Whether the exclusion in section 127B for goods to which section 123 applies bars settlement where foreign origin is admitted.
- Whether statutory customs relief could be sought through an interlocutory application in the Article 32 petition.
Provisions considered
- Sections 123 and 127B(1), Customs Act, 1962The Judges differed on whether admitted foreign origin and interception within the customs area displaced the statutory exclusion of section 123 goods from settlement. (¶¶ Krishna Murari J: 27-31, Sanjay Karol J: 18-27)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Judges differed on entertaining the customs relief added to a petition originally seeking home-cooked food for undertrial prisoners. (¶¶ Krishna Murari J: 1-23, Sanjay Karol J: 28-35)
Held
- Krishna Murari J considered the petition maintainable in the circumstances, including the asserted liberty interest and conflicting High Court views, and considered it permissible to mould relief after hearing the parties. This was his separate opinion, not a unanimous determination. (¶ Krishna Murari J: 1-23)
- Krishna Murari J reasoned that where goods of undisputed foreign origin were intercepted within the customs area, the reverse burden under section 123 was redundant and the corresponding settlement exclusion did not operate. He also considered green-channel passage a deemed nil declaration and did not regard non-declaration or an allegation of smuggling as an independent bar to settlement. (¶ Krishna Murari J: 27-42)
- Since a show-cause notice had subsequently issued, Krishna Murari J considered no further direction for its issue necessary. He would leave any settlement application to consideration on its merits according to law, without deciding guilt. (¶ Krishna Murari J: 43-45)
- Sanjay Karol J read the exclusion in section 127B(1) as applying to the categories specified in section 123, including watches, even when foreign origin was undisputed. In his view, the petitioner could not approach the Settlement Commission and the matter should go to the adjudicating authorities according to law. (¶ Sanjay Karol J: 22-27)
- Sanjay Karol J also considered the statutory settlement relief introduced by interlocutory application inappropriate under Article 32: no infringement of a fundamental right by the Customs Department was established and appropriate alternative remedies had not been exhausted. (¶ Sanjay Karol J: 28-35)
- The differing opinions did not yield a common ruling permitting or barring settlement in this case. The recorded disposition directs the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice. (¶ Concluding disposition)
Result
Split opinions; matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Neither separate opinion constitutes a common merits disposition on settlement eligibility.