9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has given independent reasons as to why the revision petition does not merit consideration. The petitioner cannot take umbrage to N/N.31/2003 dated 1.3.2003 as he does not fall within the definition of "eligible passenger". That apart, the authorities have concurrently recorded that the petitioner did not file true and correct declaration and attempted to smuggle the Gold Jewellery. That apart, while ordering absolute confiscation, the first respondent has referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed, [2009 (7) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In the light of the independent reasonings given by the first respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the factual reasons record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellate authority. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner was represented by a counsel. The appellate authority by an order dated 25.9.2012 held that the petitioner was in possession of Gold Jewellery when he arrived from abroad and the same was not declared by the appellant. Further, as per Notification No.31/2003-Customs dated 1.3.2003, eligible passenger means a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid passport, issued under the Passport Act, 1967, who is coming to India after a period of not less than six months of stay abroad and short visits, if any, made by the eligible passenger during the period of six months will be ignored if the total duration of stay on such visits does not exceed thirty days and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner only sought for re-export, which can be considered by this Court. 5. Before going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it has to be pointed out that this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not examine the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent as if acting as a second appellate authority. Three authorities, namely respondents 3, 2 and 1 have recorded factual findings after considering the matter and the case as put forth by the petitioner. Further more, the petitioner has been given full and effective opportunity to raise all contentions before the first and second respondents. Therefore, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
