9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reventive Unit, Customs attached to Cuddalore, checked TPTC bus bearing No. TN-32-N-0472 bound for Kumbakkonam near Koliyalur and seized two gold biscuits from the person of the petitioner and an incriminating statement was recorded. On 17-2-1995, after two days, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. On 27-2-1995, the petitioner retracted the statement recorded by the respondent officers on 16-2-1995 and submitted the baggage receipt No. 28777 dated 13-2-1995 issued by the Airport Authorities of Customs to one Selvaraj, NRI and claimed the gold as he was in possession of the gold through legal source. On 20-7-1995, a show cause notice was issued under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, to show cause as to why the gold biscuits va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, dated 15-11-1995, the seized goods were ordered absolutely confiscated with personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and the same was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 28-6-1996. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to CEGAT and the Tribunal held that the gold biscuits were liable for confiscation as the petitioner has not discharged the burden of proof as per Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Trichy adjudicated the case and ordered confiscation of the gold biscuits; but gave an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of law under which the seizure was effected and also confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. As per Section 125(2) of the Act, where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1) shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the redemption fine and personal penalty along with the duty and if the petitioner is not satisfied about the valuation of the duty, he should have approached the appellate authority. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.In view of the above statement made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not correct in saying that the date of sale of the gold was not given by the respondents. Further, to prove the fact that the gold biscuits were not smuggled by the petitioner, he has not at all come forward to produce any evidence that the gold biscuits were purchased by him legally as per law. Further, while remitting the matter, the Tribunal directed the respondents to exercise the power conferred under Section 125 of the Act and fix the fine, penalty and duty payable by the petitioner and therefore, I see no illegality or contravention of any provisions by the respondents in dealing with the gold biscuits seized from the petitioner. Therefore, as contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
