9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrival in the Mumbai International Airport he failed to disclose that he was carrying dutiable goods. According to the Appellant the said memory cards for use in mobile phones, were freely importable goods for which the customs duty leviable was 4%. According to the Respondent however the duty applicable as per the Baggage Rules for international travel was 35% ad valorem. Thus worked out to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ajit Prakash Shah, CJ. and S. Muralidhar, J. Shri Pradeep Jain and Ms. Deeksha Bhutani, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Mukesh Anand with R.C.S. Bhadoria and Shailesh Tiwari, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - CM No. 14133/2009 (delay) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. LPA No. 502/2009 1. This appeal is directed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis that the goods were valued at Rs.1,06,67,525. By the order dated 12th August, 2009, the Commissioner of Customs required the appellant to inter alia to furnish cash security in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs, along with certain other conditions. 2. By the impugned order while the learned Single Judge has deleted the direction requiring the Appellant to furnish an undertaking stating that he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as cash security was harsh considering that the 4% duty amount, if at all required to be paid, worked out to only Rs.4,26,000. The contention is that since the Appellant was apprehended only as a domestic passenger, the requirement of his having to pay 35% ad valorem duty in terms of the Baggage Rules did not arise. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
