9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5th January 2008 and after giving opportunity to the Respondent to demonstrate that notwithstanding the said judgment, the statement made in Annexure-2 to the application made before the CCESC should be accepted as a full and true disclosure of all the relevant facts - the Court set aside the orders dated 27th April 2006 and 12th July 2006 and remands the application of the Respondent to the CCESC for a fresh consideration - petition disposed off - matter remanded. - W.P.(C) 13848 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR AND VIBHU BAKHRU JJ. Mr. Satish Agarwala, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Mr. Abhinav Jaganathan, Advocates for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The challenge by Union of India ( UOI& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs compounding the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1) (a) of the Act was challenged initially by the Union of India in W.P.(C) No. 12912 of 2006 in this Court. By order dated 17th October 2006 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Against that order, the Union of India filed Civil Appeal No. 683 of 2008 which came to be allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 25th January 2008. The order dated 25th May 2006 of the Chief Commissioner of Customs and the order dated 17th October 2006 of the Division Bench of the Court in W.P.(C) No. 12912 of 2006 were set aside. Inter alia, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the disclosure made by the Respondent for the purposes of compounding of offences wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the issues to be settled and the terms of settlement sought for by the Applicant . In this Annexure-2, in nine paragraphs, the Respondent set out the facts and circumstances, which according to the Respondent, explain his bringing the two earrings by flight from London to New Delhi on 11th August 2004. 8. There were two orders passed by CCESC. The first impugned order is dated 27th April 2006 which is the Admission Order‟ under Section 127C of the Act. In this order, the CCESC negatived the objections raised by the DRI to the maintainability of the application. It is seen that at that stage when the objections were filed, i.e. on 18/19th April 2006, the Chief Commissioner of Customs had not yet compounded the offences. This w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that in terms of Section 127B of the Act, what the Respondent was required to do was to make an application in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer.... He submits that inasmuch as the Respondent had made a full and true disclosure of the duty liability, the requirement of Section 127B of the Act stood satisfied and therefore there was no ground to interfere with the impugned final order dated 12th July 2006 passed by the CCESC. He further submitted that, notwithstanding the judgment dated 25th January 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
