9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it case. The brown paper packet, on examination, was found to contain gold jewellery weighing 385 gms. valued at Rs. 53,515/- cif. The articles of gold jewellery had not been declared to the counter or examining officers. Thereafter, the passenger Shri Abdul Gafoor was subjected to personal search before two independent witnesses. One Air Tag No. 12-12-96 was recovered from his pant pocket. Immediately, Shri Abdul Gafoor snatched that air-tag from the Customs Officer and tore it into three bits. The torn-out bits were recovered from Shri Abdul Gafoor and pasted together. When questioned, Shri Abdul Gafoor admitted that besides the red suitcase and plastic handbag, he booked yet another brown suit case when he boarded the plane at Singapore. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally marked 1 to 25 for the purpose of identification. As Shri Abdul Gafoor had no valid import licence to cover the importation of the 8500 numbers of Tape Recorder heads valued at Rs. 42.500/. c.i.f. in the absence of Reserve Bank of India s permission in respect of importation of gold jewellery 415 gms. and valued at Rs. 57,685/- the same were seized under a mahazar for action under the Customs law. The baggage goods valued at Rs. 4,417/- c.i.f. inclusive of 10 Nos. of Crocodile Banians valued at Rs. 50/- c.i.f. were also seized for action under Customs law. The documents 25 Nos. were also seized for further investigation. Apart from the above, the old pant used for concealing the jewellery, two brief cases, photo album, the baggage clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r questioned with regard to the same question (2) Can the applicant be said to have imported gold jewellery of 415 gms into India when they were seized even before the applicant could give a declaration or crossed the clearance line question (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant should not have given an opportunity to re-export the gold jewellery question (4) Whether the denial of baggage allowance to the applicant is justified and the confiscation of the baggage goods valued at Rs. 4,417/- is justified question (5) Whether the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the applicant is legal and valid ? 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the Representative of the Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Delhi High Court in Union of India and Others v. Khalil Kacherim, 1970 Cri. L.J. 417. To take a different view would introduce confusion in the matter of levy of duty under the provisions of the Act. More so, as we think, in the case of goods in the hands of transit passengers. So long as they were not taken out of the clearance line in the customs office in the airport, they cannot be said to be imported within the meaning of the Act. 7. We are of the view that in the light of the observations contained in the ruling cited supra, in the context of the order of the Tribunal out of which the reference application has arisen, a question of law can be said to arise meriting reference to the High Court in respect of questions (1) to ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
