9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to point out any error apparent on the face of the record to entertain the Review Application - Since there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the Review Application, the Review Application is liable to be dismissed. Calling of the records relating to the impugned order - review application dismissed - contention of the Writ Petitioner is that the petitioner could not participate in the adjudication proceedings before the 2nd respondent and in view of the order passed in above Review Application, the impugned order dated 27.02.2016 is liable to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration - HELD THAT:- Since this Court had already allowed the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed the above Review Application stating that the 2nd respondent-Review Applicant, viz., The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport), had passed an order on 27.02.2016, i.e., two days prior to the passing of the order in the Writ Petition, ordering absolute confiscation of the gold weighing 446 gms and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,20,000/- [Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only] under section 112 (a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Mr. A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the Review Application submitted that the alleged date of the order, i.e. 27.02.2016 was a Saturday. Further, the learned counsel submitted that while disposing of the Writ Petition on 29.02.2016, the adjudication order was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.2968 of 2016 has also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.16483 of 2016 to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.02.2016 and to quash the same. 8. By order dated 27.02.2016, the 2nd respondent absolutely confiscated the gold weighing 446 gms and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,20,000/- [Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only]. Since this Court had already passed an order on 29.02.2016 in W.P.No.2968 of 2016 directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the gold jewellery weighing 446 gms and on such deposit being made, the gold jewellery in question shall be released forthwith by the 2nd respondent and that the Review Application fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
