9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principal challenge as mounted by the petitioner is to an order dated 29 November, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India, by which the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, has been rejected. By the impugned order, the order dated 08 October, 2013 being an order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, has been confirmed. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are:- As it was observed that the movements of the petitioner were suspicious, the petitioner was intercepted by the officers of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggage, the petitioner was found to be carrying foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency valued Rs. 33,06,667.60. The said currency was US Dollars, Euros, UAE Dirhams and Saudi Riyals. The amount being recovered from the person of the petitioner was substantial. A statement of the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was also recorded (dated 14 March, 2006) in which the petitioner stated that he was a trader of industrial electronic parts and leather luggages and that his business was totally based in foreign countries mainly Singapore and Hong Kong and he had no business in India. He stated that his family was based in Gujarat and he was an NRI and travelled to various countries in connection with h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrency equivalent to Indian Rs. 33,06,667.60 under the provisions of Section 113(d), (e) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under the provisions of Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 alongwith the order of confiscation of the other items namely pouch as also the shoes. 6. It appears from the record that the Commissioner of Customs as per the provisions of Section 113(d), (e) and (h) read with Section 118(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 6(3) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, passed a further order-in-original dated 22 October, 2010 which was also on the similar terms as in the terms of the order dated 30 January, 2008. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, the appeal came to be rejected. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority, approached the Government of India in a revision application which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29 November, 2017 as passed by the Principal Commissioner & ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the concurrent findings of all the authorities below, has limited submissions. His first submission is that when the petitioner approached the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in an order passed on the petitioner's bail application, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate made an observation that it was not pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t fields, is certainly not permissible, much less when the adjudication before the Metropolitan Magistrate was merely of a bail application recording prima facie observations, only in the context of bail, which in any event were certainly not conclusive. We, therefore, reject such contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner. 10. The second contention as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not put to notice of the provisions of Section 102 of the Customs Act namely that the petitioner would have an option to be taken to the nearest gazetted officer and/or Magistrate and in whose presence he could have been searched. Such contention appears to be totally untenable from the reading of paragraph 2 of show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t findings of all the authorities below, and that the findings of the facts ought not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 15. In the light of the above discussion and having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in our opinion, as observed above, none of the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner are accepted. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere in the impugned orders would be very limited namely to examine whether there is any patent perversity and illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. This Court in exercise of such jurisdiction would not re-appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
