9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1749 - CGOVT - CustomsMaintainability of revision application - town seizure of the smuggled goods - Section 129DD read with sub-section (1) of Section 129A of the Customs Act - Held that - It is clearly a town seizure case and is not a baggage matter at all. There is no clue in the RA by which this case can be related with a baggage. Therefore, Government considers that a revision application in respect of the Commissioner (Appeals) s order involving the town seizure of the smuggled goods cannot be entertained under Section 129DD read with sub-section (1) of Section 129A of the Customs Act - revision application dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues:
1. Revision of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing re-export of gold jewellery. 2. Admissibility of revision application under Section 129DD and Section 129A of the Customs Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The revision application was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order permitting the re-export of gold jewellery by Mr. Shah Faisal Mukri upon payment of a redemption fine and penalty. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs contended that the re-export was wrongly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 2: The revision application was deemed inadmissible by the Government as it involved a case of smuggling of goods by Mr. Mukri, with the seizure taking place at the Delhi railway station, which was not in the airport area. The Government concluded that the case was a town seizure matter and not related to baggage, thus not falling under the purview of Section 129DD and Section 129A of the Customs Act. In the detailed analysis, it was noted that Mr. Mukri admitted to smuggling the jewellery from Dubai by concealing it on his person and not declaring it to Customs officers. The act was classified as smuggling under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act. The Government emphasized that the case was clearly a town seizure matter, distinct from baggage issues, and therefore, the revision application could not be entertained under the specified sections of the Customs Act. Consequently, the revision application filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was rejected as not admissible, based on the grounds that the case involved town seizure of smuggled goods, falling outside the scope of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act.
|
