9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disembarkation card ought not to be considered as an attempt at evading payment of customs duty. By following the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Ashok Kumar Jain [2013 (8) TMI 317 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the provisions that confer jurisdiction on the CCESC should not be construed narrowly to exclude such type of cases from the purview of Section 127B. If that was the legislative intent, then there ought to have been a specific provision to that effect. The Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned final order. - Petition disposed of - W. P. (C) 8914/2014 & CM No. 20412/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 pieces of Sony Digital HD Video Cameras was arrived at ₹ 36,40,000/-. The value of the two Black Magic Cinema Cameras worked out to ₹ 4,61,000/-. 4. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act'). A voluntary statement was tendered by the Respondent under Section 108 of the Act on 24th April, 2013 admitting to bringing the above dutiable goods from Singapore. He was arrested under Section 104 of the Act and subsequently released on bail. A provisional release order was passed on 30th September, 2013 for release of the goods in his favour subject to the Respondent paying the customs duty of ₹ 10,63,432 on the assessment value of ₹ 28,49,880, furnishing a bank guarantee for ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the aforementioned amounts, ordering the release of the bond, discharge of the bank guarantee and granting immunity to the Respondent from prosecution. 8. The main grievance voiced by the Customs Department through its counsel Mr Satish Kumar is that the CCESC ought not to have entertained the application at all since the essential condition stipulated in Section 127B of the Act was not fulfilled. It is urged, on the strength of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Customs v. A. Mahesh Raj 2006 (1) TMI 134 (Kar) and the decision of this Court in the Additional Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Ram Niwas Verma 2015 (9) TMI 197 (Del) that since this was a case where no declaration had been made by the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Customs v. A. Mahesh Raj (supra), proceeded on the basis that if it was a case of mis-declaration and not a case of misclassification, Section 127B itself is not applicable. 11. This Court is unable to agree with the above analysis of Section 127B of the Act by the Karnataka High Court. On the other hand, the Court is inclined to follow the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) Sections 127A and 127B have been analysed as under: 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that on a careful reading of Section 127(A) and 127(B) the Revenue s contention that since the applicant had not filed bill of entry or that the case was one relating to baggage and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
