9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and subsequent revision under Section 129DD. 3. Restoration of appeal, remand, and final order allowing redemption of gold. 4. Subsequent revision under Section 129DD and imposition of redemption fine and confiscation order. 5. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the confiscation and fine imposition. Analysis: 1. The petitioner arrived from Muscat with gold, claiming it was purchased from personal savings for business purposes. The gold was seized, and after due process, a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner appealed, obtained interim relief, but the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with deposit requirements. 2. A revision under Section 129DD was filed, resulting in the restoration of the appeal and a direction to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-. The remanded appeal was allowed, permitting redemption of 5 kg of gold on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and re-shipment of the balance on payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Subsequently, another revision was filed, leading to the restoration of the original penalty and a new redemption fine. 3. The respondent imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for 5 kg of gold and ordered confiscation of the balance. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing for treatment similar to other cases and citing the circumstances of carrying the gold due to a fellow passenger's absence. 4. The revenue contended that the entire gold import was contrary to a specific notification, justifying confiscation. The respondent's discretion in allowing redemption of 5 kg of gold was defended as reasonable and in line with the relevant notification. The Court upheld the respondent's decision, finding it reasonable and not warranting interference. 5. The Court, after considering the facts and relevant notification, concluded that the respondent's discretion in allowing the redemption of 5 kg of gold was reasonable. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Conclusion: The Court upheld the respondent's decision to allow redemption of 5 kg of gold and found no merit in the petitioner's challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
