2021 (10) TMI 126 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - foreign currencies - Contraband item - statutory revisions under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Third respondent is directed to dispose of the stay petition as expeditiously as his business would permit and in any event, within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 08.10.2021 on its own merits and in accordance with law. Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter in this order. Captioned Writ Petition and Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of - Registry to ensure that necessary and consequential amendments in the case file (owing to suo-motu impleading of third respondent) are carried out before issue of order copy and uploading of this order in the website.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of statutory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Disposition of seized alleged contraband and payment of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Resolution of stay petition pending before the Revisional Authority.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of statutory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court acknowledged that both the writ petitioner-passenger and the respondent-Customs Department have filed statutory revisions under Section 129DD of the Customs Act. The matter primarily concerns the interception of the petitioner, who holds a Malaysian Passport, by Customs officials at Chennai Anna International Airport for allegedly carrying foreign currencies in hand baggage and checked baggage. The order dated 20.08.2020 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai, is central to the case.

Issue 2: Regarding the disposition of the seized alleged contraband and the payment of redemption fine and penalty, the counsel for the writ petitioner expressed readiness to comply with the orders of the Appellate Authority. On the other hand, the Revenue counsel highlighted that the Revenue is also in revision, emphasizing the importance of resolving the matter after a decision on the stay petition. The Court directed the third respondent, the Revisional Authority, to expeditiously decide on the stay petition within three weeks from the date of the judgment.

Issue 3: The resolution of the stay petition pending before the Revisional Authority emerged as a crucial issue in the judgment. The Court emphasized the need for a prompt decision on the stay petition to address the deadlock in the case. Both parties agreed that the stay petition is pending before the Revisional Authority, and the Court instructed the third respondent to dispose of it within the specified timeline. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition and Writ Miscellaneous Petitions with directives to the impleaded third respondent, ensuring necessary amendments in the case file, and sending a copy of the order to the third respondent without any order as to costs.