Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dication proceedings, he has filed the present writ petition, which was also erroneously allowed by the learned Judge, by order impugned herein. In view of the limited relief now sought by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the fact that the learned Judge, following the earlier orders passed in the writ petitions referred to above, and without examining the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority, has partly set aside the same, when the writ petition was filed only for a mandamus to release of the gold seized, this court, without going into the merits of the case, sets aside the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 29618 of 2022 and remands the matter to the learned Judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent was directed to pay Rs. 65,000/- as bail amount, which was paid by him, on the same day i.e., on 13.05.2022 and was duly acknowledged by the officials of the appellants. Subsequently, an application under Section 110 (1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act ), came to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. Pursuant to the same, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2022 was issued calling upon the respondent to submit his explanation, if any, along with order or direction obtained from the competent Court, if any, within 15 days. The respondent sent a reply dated 02.09.2022 requesting to release the gold bars to him inter alia stating that he is ready and willing to produce the purchase bill for having purchased the g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... referring to the earlier order dated 20.04.2018 passed in WP (MD) No. 5148 of 2018 (Barakathnisa vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai) which was followed in the case of A.Krishnamoorthy vs. Commissioner of Customs and others in WP(MD) No.3456 of 2022 etc. batch dated 30.03.2022), wherein, it was held that the gold bars, which were attempted to be smuggled by mis-declaring the value of the goods, can be permitted to be cleared on payment of customs duty and such other security in the form of bank guarantee. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed the respondent herein to deposit the customs duty on the gold that was seized on 13.05.2022 together with penalty imposed in the order dated 27.03.2023 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- after o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iscated goods to the respondent during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings is not warranted and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. In this context, the learned Senior Panel Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Air), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai vs. Samynathan Murugesan and another [ 2009 SCC Online Madras 819 = (2009) 247 ELT 21] wherein it was held that the Additional Collector of Customs, in exercise of his discretion conferred under the Customs Act as well as the Import (Control) Order, 1955 read with the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, thought it fit not to grant any option to the first respondent for having smuggled the goods an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing aside the order of the learned Judge. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that in order to render complete justice, the learned Judge directed the appellants to return the confiscated gold bars to the respondent upon payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with penalty to be determined by the appellants. By the said order, the interest of the department is fully secured and no prejudice will be caused to the appellants in any manner. The learned counsel further submitted that in all the cases, confiscation of the goods is not warranted and therefore, in lieu thereof, payment of the customs duty together with penalty is also permissible. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of the learn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates