9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2008 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2011 - T. Raja, J. Mrs. K. Aparna Devi, for the Petitioner. Shri T. Chandrasekaran, for the Respondent. [Order (Common)]. The petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent in F.No. C1/14/98, dated 12-9-2007 and the second respondent in F.No. 380/56/B/97, dated 11-10-2006 and quash the same respectively. 2. When the petitioner arrived at the Chennai International Airport on 25-11-1996 by Flight No. A1 880, the officers of Air Intelligence Unit, Chennai, intercepted the petitioner-Shri Rama Subba Reddy Arava on suspicion that he mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alised policy in the import of gold and in view of the observations and directions of this Court, an option was given under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioner to redeem the same on payment of the same fine of Rs. 15,000/- as determined in the order of Commissioner of Appeals even though the order of confiscation of seized goods was not assailed. As a result, the order of Commissioner of Appeal was also restored with regard to both redemption of fine and penalty. 3. Therefore, the crux of the issue raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 11-10-2006, the respondent department after deducting a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of revisional order. On that basis, she prayed for the similar order in her cases as well. 4. Opposing the above said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the balance amount along with the interest because, the gold was confiscated and subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner also sold out the 5 gold biscuits which were admittedly confiscated on 12-9-2007. Thereafter, fine and penalty amounts were deducted from the sale proceeds and after adjusting the said amount the balance amount of Rs. 82,092/- alone can be returned back to the petitioner. This argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Commissioner in selling the gold biscuits is contrary to the earlier order passed by the Commissioner of Appeal dated 28-8-1997. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the refund of the balance amount of Rs. 2,42,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. 11-10-2006. Admittedly, the goods were sold out by the Department on 9-9-1997 realising a sum of Rs. 2,62,500/- as against the order of the Commissioner of Appeal dated 28-8-1997. Therefore, though the selling of the goods of the petitioner was wrong, however, after deducting the penalty and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, the respondents are directed to refund the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
