9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said date, the Petitioner's baggage was searched and 1065.10 grams of gold was recovered from the Petitioner. The said gold was detained and the case of the Petitioner was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 242/Adj/2021 dated 17th November, 2021. The said Order-in-original was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Vide Order-in-Appeal dated 26th July, 2022 the said appeal was allowed and, inter alia, the detained goods were directed to be released to the Petitioner on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,60,000/- as also penalty of Rs. 4,60,000/-. The operative portion of the said Order-in-Appeal dated 26th July, 2022 is extracted below: "6.0 In view of the discussion above, I allow the appeal against the O-in-O 242/Adj/2021 dated 17.11.2021 and order that the impugned Gold chain weighing 1065.10 grams, valued at Rs. 45,80,271/- be released to the Appellant on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,60,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, for re-export only. I reduce the penalty under Section 112 & 114A to Rs. 4,60,000/-. The Appeal is disposed with such modifications and consequential relief as above." 4. It is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in fact deposited the redemption amount, the fine and the penalty as imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The manner in which the impugned Refund Order and the impugned Corrigendum Order has been issued shows a complete lack of application of mind by the concerned Assistant Commissioner (Refund). 9. It is also noticed that in these impugned orders, the names of the officers who are passing these orders are not mentioned except the designation. In future, it shall be ensured that the name of the concerned officer who is passing the order shall also be mentioned in the full so that the said official can be held responsible for such glaringly incorrect orders that have been passed. 10. The impugned orders have been passed in this case by one Mr. Meena whose name is not clear and whose designation is mentioned as Assistant Commissioner (Refund). 11. At this stage, Mr. Gibran Naushad, ld. Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent seeks time to take instructions. 12. In view of the above, the Court is inclined to direct the Customs Department to deposit the entire value of the detained gold of the Petitioner. However, on a request by the ld. Counsel for the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he detained gold to the Petitioner, subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty. The said redemption fine and the penalty of a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 2,20,000/-was paid by the Petitioner on 8th December, 2021 and 8th May, 2023, respectively. On the date of the second deposit, the detained gold itself was disposed of, however, the redemption fine and penalty was still accepted by the Department. (iv) There was no proper communication or intimation given to the Petitioner prior to the disposal of the detained gold. (v) The disposal of the detained gold was also not informed to this Court, when the order dated 20th July, 2023 was passed. (vi) The impugned Refund Order was passed on 3rd October, 2024. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "17. Return of tariff value of 1065.10 grams of confiscated gold amounting to Rs. 50,14,704/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Four Only) in lieu of the re-export of the same after realizing the Redemption Fine of Rs. 4,60,000/- and Penalty of Rs. 4,60,000/- and order to pay an amount of Rs. 50,14,704/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Four Only) to the applicant/Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deducted without paying the amount of the value of the detained gold to the Petitioner. 16. In the opinion of this Court, this course of action would be completely contrary to law inasmuch as the Order-in-Appeal had clearly directed the release and re-export of the detained gold, subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty. The said order could not have been ignored by the Customs Department. Even if there was a lack of communication, the fact of disposal of the detained gold ought to have been communicated to the Court, when the W.P. (C) No. 6690/2023 was being heard and the final order therein was passed on 20th July, 2023. 17. The disposal of the detained gold without intimation to the Petitioner is also contrary to law. Clause 3.1.2 of the Circular dated 6th September, 2022 would, therefore, have no application in the present case. The entire process followed by the Customs Department for the disposal of the detained gold, collecting the redemption fine and penalty as also deducting customs duty before payment of the value of the detained gold to the Petitioner would, therefore, not be tenable. 18. The Petitioner having succeeded in appeal before the Commissioner of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
