9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31/2003-Customs, dated 1-3-2003, issued under Chapter 71 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Decided in the favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1962. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the respondents should release the gold jewellery on the petitioner paying the customs duty, as per the Notification No. 31/2003-Customs, dated 1-3-2003, along with the applicable penalty, if any, as per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He had further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had been residing at Singapore for more than six months and as such, he is eligible to bring upto 10 kilograms of gold. He had also submitted that gold is not a restricted item. The duty that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the High court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in Shaik Jamal Basha v. Government of India [1997 (91) E.L.T. 277 (A.P.)], wherein it had been held that an option to pay the fine, in lieu of the confiscation of the goods, is to be given to the importer, in terms of the Second Part of Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 9 of the Baggage Rules, 1978, framed under Section 79(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. He had also relied on the decision of the High Court of Calcutta, made in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Uma Shankar Verma [2000 (120) E.L.T. 322 (Cal.)], wherein it had been held that, as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, if the goods are 'prohibited' the option to confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and Regulation) Act, 1992. The 650 US Dollars carried by the petitioner had also been retained. 11. It had also been stated that the petitioner had admitted, voluntarily, that he did not intend to declare the gold jewellery and that the jewellery did not belong to him. However, he had retracted the statement later stating that it had been obtained under coercion. It had been further stated that, since, the petitioner did not declare the gold jewellery brought by him and as he had attempted to evade the payment of customs duty, in respect of the said gold jewellery, he had contravened the provisions of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. As such, the gold jewellery was liable for confiscation, under Section 111 of the said Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that the second respondent should be directed to release the gold jewellery, covered by F.No. O.S.No. 942 of 2010/2010-AIU, on payment of the customs duty applicable for the import of the jewellery, as per the Notification No. 31/2003-Customs, dated 1-3-2003, issued under Chapter 71 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Even though the respondents had stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had failed to declare the gold jewellery brought by him from Singapore, on 4-9-2010, with the intention of evading payment of customs duty, no proper grounds have been made out for their refusal to release the gold jewellery, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
