9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act, 1962. The requirement of disclosure, apparently spelt out in Anil Chanana [2008 (1) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] was read in to the power under Section 137 (3) of the Act, having regard to the given circumstances of the case. It was highlighted during the hearing, that the offence with which the importer or smuggler was charged with in that case attracted a minimum sentence - which impelled the Court’s observation that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compounding. it is apparent that the petitioner after initially refuting ownership, later on admitted ownership in his subsequent statements and paid up the duty amount, penalty and redemption fine. In these circumstances, considering that no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en into the country without declaring them; he could not, upon being stopped by the customs authorities, give a satisfactory explanation or produce any evidence with regard to the legality of the goods. He admitted the recovery of goods from his package. In his first statement on 31.05.2011 recorded under Section 108, the petitioner stated that goods were given by one Shri Rakesh Jain of Hong Kong for delivering the same to someone else in Jaipur. In the later statement recorded in July and August, 2011, the petitioner admitted that the articles were procured by him only and that he bought them from the market to sell them in India. He admitted that due to fear, he did not disclose the truth on 31.05.2011. Apparently, he also made certain c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 Pcs of Memory Cards and pay duty but the Customs Officer instead of preparing necessary papers for payment of duty took him to the office room and made him sit there and dictated the statement dated 31/05/2011. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has not made a true and complete declaration of facts in as much as he did not reveal in his application for compounding anything about the contradictory stand taken by him in his bail application and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. A comparison of the statements made under Section 108 and in bail application disclose major demonstrable contradictions or inconsistencies or incompleteness in the case of the applicant in as much as in his initial statement he adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have incurred a fine imposed by the trial court at its discretion. In these circumstances, argued the counsel, with the acceptance of the adjudication order, depositing the duty, penalty and redemption fine, no purpose would have been served by the Revenue s insistence on his prosecution. Counsel stressed that on the other hand, the Revenue would have earned an additional Rs.1.83 lakhs being the compounding fee (10% of the value of the goods + redemption fine). 7. The Revenue resisted the petition urging that the reasoning of the Chief Commissioner was reasonable and does not call for interference. Counsel relied upon the decision in Anil Chanana (supra) to say that the disclosure in the present case was not made at one go, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompounded by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on payment, by the person accused of the offence to the Central Government, of such compounding amount and in such manner of compounding as may be specified by rules. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to- (a) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under sections 135 and 135A; W.P.(C)3507/2014 Page 6 (b) a person who has been accused of committing an offence under this Act which is also an offence under any of the following Acts, namely: (i) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(61 of 1985); (ii) the Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2000 (34 of 2000); (iii) the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959); (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 137 (3). Likewise, an embargo has been placed upon the power of compounding in respect of a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act, 1962. The requirement of disclosure, apparently spelt out in Anil Chanana s case was read in to the power under Section 137 (3) of the Act, having regard to the given circumstances of the case. It was highlighted during the hearing, that the offence with which the importer or smuggler was charged with in that case attracted a minimum sentence - which impelled the Court s observation that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compounding. 10. In the given facts of this case, it is apparent that the petitioner after initially refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
