WP/1618/2026 of MOHAMMED MANNAN SHAREEF Vs The Union of India on 21 January 2026

1. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary Department of Finance North Block New Delhi 110 001.

2. The Principal Commissioner of Customs and CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS -l),, Hyderabad Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad - 500004.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,, Air Customs, Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport, Shamshabad. Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to the order passed by Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.01/2026- Cus dated 16.01.2026, whereby the Petitioner statutory appeal was dismissed as time- barred and for non- compliance of pre deposit, and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to entertain the Appeal No.01/2026-Cus, admit, and decide the statutory appeal on merits, without reiecting it on the ground of lim itation. l.A.No.2 of 2026 Petition Under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 to entertain the Appeal No.01/2026-Cus, admit, and decide the statutory appeal on merits, wrthout rejecting it on the ground of limitation pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. HASSAN HUSSAIN JUNAIDI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B.MUKHERJEE, AOVOCATE FOR SRI. N BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : M/s DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES (C.B.I.C) The Court made the following ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Date of Order : 2L.O1.2O26 Mohammed Mannan Shareef, S/ o. Mohammed Dawood Shareef . . Petitioner Vs. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretarv, Department of Finance, North Block, New Delhi and two others. Respo n dents ORDER : (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Hassan Hussain Junaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, lor respondent No. 1; and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes (C.B.I.C.) for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Writ Petition No.1618 of 2026 BETWEEN:

2. The instant is a u,rit petition r.r'hich has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for isslrance of a Wit of Certiorai by calling for the records relatir-rg to thc ordcr passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.01/2026'Cus.. dated 16.O1.2026, whereby the petitioner's statutory appeal \rvas dismissed as time-barred and for non- compliance of pre-deposit, and to set aside the said order as being illegal, arbitrar-v and in violation of Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of lndia; and consequently, to direct respondent No.2 to entertain to entertain Appeal No.Ol /2O26-Cus, admit, and decide the sarne on merits s.ithout rejecting it on the ground of limitation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner herein is a student pursuing higher eclucation in United Arab Emirates. On 19.O7 .2023, when the petitioner was travelling from Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad to Dubai by Flight No.FZ-436, he was intercepted by officials of tht: Central Industrial Security Force (C.l.S.F.) and handed o\rer to olficials of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit (A.l.U.) on the ground of suspicion of carrying foreign currency, amounting to 30,600/- (United Arab Dmirates Dirham) (equivalent to INR Rs.7,08,390/-). Petitioner informed the officials that he was carr5ring the said amount tou'ards payment of semester tuition fee to pursue his Master's Degree in lnformation Technologz at Canadian University ol Dubai. Petitioner further informed the offici:ils that he neither concealed the currency nor carried it for aly commercial, unlawful, or smuggling purpose, and that non-declaration ol the said amount u,as purely inadvertent and due to lack of au.areness of procedural requlrements.

4. Basing on the above set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Sections I 13(d), I 13(e) and I 13(h) of the Customs Act, 1962 read u,ith the Foreign Exchange Malagement (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 20 15 whereby the officials proposed a penalty under Section 114 ol the Customs Act ald Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Basing on the said shou,-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanalion vide letter dated 25.07.2023. Thereafter, a personal hearing u'as also conducted on 01.05.2024, wherein the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in his explalation vide letter dated 25.07.2023, and requested the authorities to take a lenient vier,r'' in the rnatte r.

5. Ho'"r,ever, the respondent No.3, i.e., the Office of the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Customs, R.G.I.A., basing on the facts of the case, passed orders vide Order-in-Original No.O3 12024 25, dated O9.O5.2O24, holding that the petitioner had attempted to take out foreign currency (referred supra) without genera,l or special permission from the Reserve Bank ol lndia ald also failed to produce any evidence of procurement of the detained foreign currency from authorized sources as en'",isaged under F.E.M.A. regulations and therefore, the respondent No.3 declined the option of redeeming the seized goods and ordered for absolute confiscation of the subject foreign currency equivalent to INR 7 ,O8,39O I seized under Panchanama dated 19.07.2023 in terms of Section 113(d), 113(e) and li3(h) of the Customs Act, 1962, re:rd u'ith the Foreign Exchange Management (Export & Import of Currenc-v) Regulations, 2O15 and imposed a penalty of Rs.70,839/ on the petitioner in terms of Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 7962 read r.r'ith Section 13(1) of Foreign Exchar-rge Management acl . 1999.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals-l), H-yderabad Commissionerate, i.e., respondent No.2 herein

7. Vide Order in Appeal No.HYD-CUS-OOO-APP1-167-25-26, dated

16. OI.2026, the respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal as time-barred and also for non-compl-ving with the mandatory requirement of pre- deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

8. The respondent No.2, in the course of passing the above order, held that the petitioner had filed the appeal on09.0I.2026 in the form of appeal in C.A.- 1, i.e., after a lapse of more than one year and four months. Whereas the petitioner had stated in the grounds of appeal that he had received the order passed by respondent No.3 on 06.09.2024 ald prayed for condonation of delay by stating that the circumstances \ rere beyond his control. The respondent No.2 went on to hold that Section 128 of the Customs Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order but the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. The respondent No.2 further held that since petitioner had preferred the appeal beyond the prescribed time period ol sixty days ald even beyond the condonable period of further thirty days, the appeal prelerred by the petitioner cannot be admitted and the same is liable to be rejected as time-barred, and accordingly rejected the appeal by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the .- case of M/s.Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpurl.

9. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

10. l,earned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the respondent No.2 / appellate authority ought to have adopted a liberal interpretation while considering the petition for condonation of delay and ought to have allowed it; whereas the respondent No.2/appellate authority had adopted a strict implementation and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner without showing leniency towards the petitioner; the respondent No.2/appellate authority ought to have also considered the Fact that if the delay is not condoned, the appeal would stand dismissed, and thereby the petitioner would be left remediless against the order of confiscation or even for getting other reliefs; the respondent No.2/appellate authority ought to have condoned the delal' subject to imposition of some conditions; and therefore, prayed that this Court may consider the same and a,llow the writ petition.

11. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, contended that the petitioner in the instant case u.ould not get any advantage under Section 14 of the t I2OOA Q2tl E.L.r. r 63 (S.C.)]

Limitation Act, 1963 for the reason that the impugned order-in original passed by respondent No.3 was received by the petitioner on 06.09 .2024. Hou,ever, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.2/ appellate authority beyond the prescribed time period of sixty days and evcn beyond the condonable period of further thirty days; and thercafter on 09.01.2026, i.e., after a lapse of more than one year and one month, the petitioner filed the above appeal before the respondent No.2/ appellate authority. He further contended that the statute requires the petitioner to explain each day's delay which occurred in the process of filing of the appeal and in the absence of any plausible explanation, the delay could not have been condoned and as such the order under challenge in the instant writ petition does not \l'arrant interference by this Court. L2. Having heard thc contentions put forth on either side ald on a perusal ol the record, the matter undisputedly pertains to the petitioner carrying foreigr-r cash to pay for his studies at Canadian University of Dubai. 13, The only aspect u,hich is required to be considered by this Court is uthether the Commissioner (Appeals) r.t as justified in not condoning the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal ?

- Page I of 9 L4. True it is that there does not seem to be much of explanation available along with the condone delay petition and the grounds raised also do not have facts and continuit\, u'hich led to filing of the appeal by the petitioner before respondent No.2 -Appellate Authority Nonetheless, rvhat is r.veighing more in the mind of this Court is that firstly the delay is that ol (139) days as per the impugned order itself which calnot be said to be too inordinate a delay. Secondly, what is weighing more in the mind of this Court is that if the condone delay the order of confiscation and he will not get another opportunity to challenge the confiscation order. Right to an appeal is a matter of right which had been guaranteed and enshrined under the Act itself.

15. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner would be remediless, in the opinion of this Court, though the appellate authority has limited jurisdiction to condone the delay of when the delay is not exorbitantly or inordinatel,v delayed, the delay cal be condoned keeping in viern, of the lacts of the instant case without this being a binding precedent for anv other case

16. This Court, therefore, is inclined to ailou'the Writ Petition to the extent of setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-CUS,000-APP1- petition is not allowed, the petitioner would be left remediless against 5O days + 30 days under the Act, in the circumstances, particularly

167-25-26, dated 16.01.2026, passed by respondent No.2/ appellate authority in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, subject to payment of costs ol Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by the petitioner to the Telangana State Lcgal Services Authority r.r'ithin a period of two weeks from todiL-l . Thc respondent No.2 / appellate authority shall consider the appeal and decide the same on merits in accordance with iaw. L7: As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shali stand closed. SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To SA bs fMc.

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Department of Finance North Block New Delhi 1 '10 001 .

2. The Principal Commissioner of Customs and CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS -l),, Hyderabad Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Customs, Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad.

4. Secrtary Telangana State Legal Service Authority .

5. One CC to SRI HASSAN HUSSAIN JUNAIDI, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to M/s DON/INlC FERNANDES, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES (C.B.l.C), Advocate (OPUC)

8. Two CD Copies Note: Costs as lmposed by Hon'ble Court has been complied with vide USR No.854, dated 2810112026 for an amount of Rs.l0,0001(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards Telangana State Legal Services Authority.

HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112026

ORDER

WP.No.1618 of 2026 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @o*, ro\rtra€ THE Sl4 1 3 rrB 2026

* ( *