9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nel with his baggage was suspected carrying contraband goods. The Officers called two independent witnesses and stopped him at the Exit gate of the Arrival Hall & brought him to the Customs Counter. His baggage was searched before the two independent witnesses and goods, as detailed below were recovered from his baggage. Sl. No. Description of Goods Quantity Value (Rs.) 1. Camera (Canon Power Shot SI 15 3.2 MPxPC 1058 Made in Japan) along with Flash Card FC 32 MH. Canon. 08 Pcs 2,00,000/- 2. Camera (Canon Power Shot S2 15 5 MPxPC 1130) Made in Japan along with Memory Card SDC 16M 19 Pcs 4,75,000/- 3. Saffron 20 Kgs 4,00,000/- 4. Blue Tooth (Brand "Jebra" Made in China BCE 250 50 Pcs 1,25,000/- 5. Dental Needles 5800 Pcs 87,000/- 6. Memory Card (Brand Twin MOS Compact Flash Card 128 MB Made in Taiwan) 50 Pcs 1,00,000/- 7. Wrist watches 464 Pcs 2,32,000/- Total 16,19,000/- The passenger was carrying Passport No. E-2773289, his Air ticket, 40 Dirhams and Rs. 500/- with him. On interrogation the passenger disclosed his name and address as Aqeel Khan s/o Late Shri Anvar Khan R/O Vill. & P'.O. Qaboolpur, P.S. Jalalpur, District Jaunpur. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of passport No. E-2773289 of Aqeel Khan confirmed that he had visited Dubai and returned to India (Lucknow Airport) frequently. The details of his visits were as under:- Sl. No. Departure Date (from India to Dubai) Departure place (from India to Dubai) Arrival Date (from Dubai to India) Arrival place in India No. of days he stayed abroad 1 - 5-12-02 LUCKNOW - 2 8-1-03 MUMBAI 13-2-03 MUMBAI 35 DAYS 3 3-5-03 MUMBAI 21-6-04 MUMBAI 13 MONTHS 19 DAYS 4 5-7-04 MUMBAI 14-7-04 MUMBAI 9 DAYS 5 14-10-04 MUMBAI 16-10-04 LUCKNOW 02 DAYS 6 16-2-05 MUMBAI 23-2-05 MUMBAI 07 DAYS 7 2-3-05 MUMBAI 3-3-05 AHMEDABAD 01 DAY 8 7-3-05 MUMBAI 10-3-05 AHMEDABAD 03 DAYS 9 13-3-05 MUMBAI 17-3-05 AHMEDABAD 04 DAYS 10 19-4-05 MUMBAI 23-4-05 LUCKNOW 04 DAYS 11 4-5-05 MUMBAI 7-5-05 LUCKNOW 03 DAYS 12 17-5-05 MUMBAI 21-5-05 LUCKNOW 04 DAYS 13 8-6-05 MUMBAI 9-6-05 LUCKNOW 01 DAY 14 21-6-05 MUMBAI 23-6-05 LUCKNOW 02 DAYS 15 28-6-05 MUMBAI 4-7-05 LUCKNOW 05 DAYS It was evident from the Passport that Shri Aqeel Khan always boarded from Mumbai for his visits to Dubai, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohd. Aqeel Khan stating that he deny the allegation of non declaration of the goods brought by him and his attempt to clear the goods from Green channel of the Customs Arrival Hall. He stated that he wanted to clear the goods by paying the customs duty. 11. During investigation of the case name of one Shri Sheikh Mohd. Salim Abdul Jabar S/o Abdul Jabbar originally R/o Post Sisvaria, District Gonda, now settled in Mumbai R/o Room No. 27, IInd Floor, 42/2, Merchant Building Opposite Ashadham Byculla, Mumbai-08 and his telephone No. 9892627866 came to light. A search was conducted at his residence i.e. Room No. 27, IInd Floor, 42/2, Merchant Building Opposite Ashadham Complex, Near Ashadeep, Bycalla, Mumbai 08 and a Panchnama dated 2-8-2005 was drawn, wherein Smt. Tabassum, wife of Shri Sheikh Mohd. Salim Abdul Jabbar stated that Salim had gone to Gonda for funeral of his father about 25 days back and has not returned since then. Hence, statement of Shri Sheikh Mohd. Salim Abdul Jabbar could not be recorded. The call of details of his Mobile No. 9892627866 were procured from M/s Airtel Ltd. Lucknow. During investigation, one more Mobile No. 9415758376 also came to light. The B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Salim Abdul Jabbar was in contact with one international No. 971502509785 of Dubai which was regularly in touch with him, and at times with Shri Akhlaq Mohd. Naqvi, Advocate also. Whenever Shri Niyaz Mohd. Hasan Khan and/or Shri Aqeel Khan came from Dubai to Lucknow, Shri Akhlaq Mohd. Naqvi had contacted Shri D.S. Shukla, Inspector the then Air Customs Officer, who was present on duty on those dates (as per of Office DUTY CHART). It was also observed that both Shri Sheikh Mohd. Salim Abdul Jabbar and Shri Akhlaq Mohd. Naqvi, Advocate were also in touch with a Mobile No. 9322871107, which belonged to Shri Niyaz Mohd. Hasan Khan, as per the letter dated 01.03.2006 of M/s Reliance Infocom, Lucknow. The call details of Mobile No. 9322871107 was also procured from M/s Reliance Infocom, Lucknow. 13. For investigation, it was all the more necessary that Shri Akhlaq Mohd. Naqvi, Advocate R/o Masjid Tahseen, Chowk, Lucknow should present himself before the Inquiring Officer when the summons u/s 108 of the Customs Act were issued to him, but Shri Akhlaq Mohd. Naqvi Advocate vide his letter dated 25-11-2005, which was received by the Superintendent on 30-11-2005 stated that due to sudde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign origin goods valued Rs. 16,19,000/- as detailed in the Panchnama dated 4-7-2005, U/S 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 but give an option for Redemption of the goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lac]. The option shall be exercised within 20 days of receipt of this order. 02. I also order for payment of Customs Duty of Rs. 5,77,983/- on the Redeemed goods [Baggage Duty @ 35% Adv.+Education Cess @ 2%] under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty shall be paid in addition to the Redemption Fine on the goods. 03. I impose a personal penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- [Rupees Six Lac only] on Shri Aqeel Khan under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 04. 1 also impose personal penalties on the following noticees under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:- [a] Shri Abul Salim Jabbar Rs. 3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lac only] [b] Shri Akhlaq Naqvi Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rupees one Lac only] [c] Shri D.S. Shukla Rs. 50.000/- [Rupees Fifty thousand only]". 16. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Adjudicating Authority, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period. As observed, it took almost two months for the respondent to serve order-in-Original. Cause shown by the appellant with regard to non filing of the appeal seems to be reasonable and satisfactory explained. Order-in-Original was served on 15-11-2007 on the appellant. The allegation that the appellant had adopted dilatory tactics during the course of proceeding before Adjudicating Authority may not be taken into account while considering period of limitation with regard to filing of appeal. The period of limitation for filing of appeal should be considered from the date of service of order-in-Original. The filing of application under RTI followed by writ petition in this Court and delayed compliance of order of this Court by the respondent makes out the case for interference under the appellate jurisdiction. 18. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed and matter be remitted back to the First Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner Appeal. 19. It is clarified that we have not entered into merits of the case as far as order passed by Adjudicating Authority is concerned. 20. In view of the above, impugned order dated 30-1-2008 passed by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
