9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a hurry to get through the Customs. She was wearing and having in the baggages, Gold and Diamond studded jewellery and had not declared the same to the authorities. According to the petitioner there was no ulterior motive for the non-declaration of the jewellery. By an order dated 7-7-1989, the Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the Gold Jewellery weighing 52 grams valued at Rs. 4,680/- and diamond studded jewellery valued at Rs. 25,400/- under Section 111(d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Act"). He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000/- on the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Act. It is to be noticed here that the petitioner did declare certain jewelleries, but the subject items had not been decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 6,000/- a refund had already been made to the extent of Rs. 4,500/-, in compliance with the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner thereupon issued a notice on 3-5-1984 seeking return of the jewellery. Unable to get any response, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to give effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 14-10-1983. The writ petition was filed on 10-2-1986. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed. The material facts loading to the order of the Tribunal are not disputed. The value of the jewellery as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner is disputed. It is further stated that the gold jewellery had been disposed of in July, 1980 itself. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner cites the judgment of the Kerala High Court in K. Suryakumar v. Union of India (O.P. No. 7198 of 1981, dated 7-12-1982). That judgment in my opinion, does not in any way support the case of the petitioner. That was not a case where the jewellery had been disposed of, by the Customs Department. That was a case where the jewellery was available and there was only a delay in paying redemption fine and the court directed the return of the jewellery by excusing the delay in filing the redemption fine. It is next argued that if the gold and jewellery had been disposed of the petitioner is entitled to the value of the same on the basis of the current market rates. For this purpose, reference is made to Union of India v. Sambunath Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Central Board on 6-3-1990, the petitioner has to blame herself for the loss of the jewellery. Learned counsel for the respondents placed before me the records to show that the sale of the diamonds and other precious stones at Bombay was in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. Under such circumstances, I am unable to reject the contention that only a sum of Rs. 34,439.35 was realised as and by way of sale proceeds. But I am unable to understand as to how the second respondent is demanding a duty at the rate of 120 per cent worked out to Rs. 35,160/-. A reference to the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal does not warrant the imposition of any duty as claimed by the second respondent. The operative portion is as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
