9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was, however, revoked later on – Held that the revocation of COFEPOSA detention did not detract from the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant - The confiscation is perfectly justifiable – Case remanded for proper valuation of diamonds to impose fine. - C/411/2007 - 972/2008 - Dated:- 5-9-2008 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri S. Palanikumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. When the appellant was proceeding to board a Bangkok-bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (appellant) was on his way to board the flight after completing emigration formalities and crossing Customs area. In another statement subsequently given by the appellant, he, inter alia, stated to the effect that he had given statements voluntarily. On 10-2-07, the appellant was arrested for attempt to smuggle diamonds valued at Rs. 34,76,000/- out of India, and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore on 11-2-2007. He was remanded to judicial custody. While the appellant was in prison, his wife sent a retraction letter to the department and the same was replied to. The Customs authorities resumed investigations against the appellant. While so, the appellant was detained under COFEPOSA on 14-3-2007. This det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The evidence on record is clearly indicative of the appellant's conscious attempt to smuggle the diamonds out of the country. The revocation of COFEPOSA detention did not detract from the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant under the Customs Act. The confiscation ordered in this case is under Section 113(d) and (h) of the Act. Even the appellant has no case that these provisions were not attracted. The confiscation under these provisions is perfectly justifiable as rightly pointed out by the ld. SDR and I uphold the same. 4. However, after hearing the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. SDR for the respondent, I have found a valid point for the appellant as against absolute confiscation of the goods. It is pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to exercise his discretion under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act in a judicious manner and to decide whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant can be permitted to redeem the diamonds on payment of fine. If the appellant is so permitted, the Commissioner shall determine a reasonable amount of fine. Further, he shall also redetermine the quantum of penalty to be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. It goes without saying that the quantum of fine will be based on the value of the goods. As the valuation of the diamonds is not under valid challenge, the Commissioner will be at liberty to determine the amount of fine (in the aforesaid event) on the basis of the value already estimated. It goes without stayin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
