9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been re-routed through Colombo due to unavoidable reasons. At the time when she arrived at the Madras Airport, she was exhausted and was in a hurry to get through the customs. She was wearing and having in her baggage gold and diamond studded jewellery and had not declared the same to the authorities. The Additional Collector of Customs by his order confiscated the gold jewellery weighing 52 grams valued at Rs. 4680/- and diamond studded jewellery valued at Rs. 25,400/- under Section 111(d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6000/- to the petitioner under Section 112 of the Act. Even though the petitioner did declare certain jewelleries on arrival, the jewelleries in question were not declared and on an exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad already been made as the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner issued a notice on 3-5-1984 seeking return of the jewellery and she did not get any reply. The petitioner filed the writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to give effect to the order of the Tribunal, dated 14-10-1983. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit did not dispute the material facts leading to the order of the Tribunal. It is stated in the counter that the gold Jewellery was deposited with the Government of India Mint at Bombay in July, 1980 and the diamonds were sold in auction in July, 1983 and after that only the second respondent received a letter from the Tribunal on 25-7-1983 enclosing a copy of the grounds of appeal. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in July, 1980 and the diamond jewellery also was sold in July, 1983 and, afterwards, the second respondent on 25-7-1983 had received a letter from the Tribunal enclosing a copy of the grounds of appeal. The respondents have duly informed the Government of India as well as the Tribunal about the disposal of the jewelleries. The Central Board confirmed the order of confiscation by its order, dated 6-3-1980 and the petitioner did not take steps to file a revision immediately and had kept quiet. It is needless to say that a party, who is seeking redress in a court of law or a quasi judicial authority, ought to be vigilant in protecting his rights. The petitioner was not vigilant and allowed the jewelleries to be disposed of. As per the records, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as per Section 125(2) of the Customs Act. As already seen, the petitioner has preferred a revision against the order of the Board in the appeal and after adjudication, the Tribunal has passed final order. The respondents are bound by the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not impose any duty on the petitioner and in such circumstance, the respondents cannot impose a duty at the rate of 120% in addition to the redemption fine. Any such imposition if made would amount to varying the order of the Tribunal, which is not permissible in law. The contention of the appellants can never be accepted. The respondents are bound to refund the balance sale price of Rs. 26,939.35 and the petitioner is entitled to that amount along with inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
