9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te and came to be remanded to the Judicial Custody. The petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter, he was released. 3.In the aforesaid statement, the petitioner made a statement that the gold which was purchased by him was out of his own savings. The said gold was to be sold in India at Trichur for the purpose of making a profit since the petitioner had desired to start some business in India. 4.After recording aforesaid statement of the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 2nd April, 1994 came to be issued. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice. He was heard. After hearing him; the respondent No. 4 was pleased to pass an order confiscating gold and also imposed penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent No. 2 - revisional authority was pleased to pass an order dated 31st July, 1998 allowing 5 kgs. of gold on payment of redemption fine amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- + duty at the normal baggage rate and the balance gold was ordered to be confiscated. The original order imposing penalty on the petitioner came to be restored. 10.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31st July, 1998, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; to contend that the respondent No. 2 was not justified in confiscating gold and committed an error in restoring the fine imposed by the original authority. 11.Mr. Naresh Thac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He further submits that the import of cold beyond 5 kgs. was not permissible as per the policy adopted by the Central Government. He further submits that actually the order of release is not preferable to the notification dated 1st March, 1992. The revisional authority while exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner merely borrowed assistance from the said Notification dated 1st March, 1992; and followed given thereunder. 13.Mr. Jetly submits that the view taken by the respondent No. 2 is a reasonable and possible view and in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. 14.Having heard rival parties and having examined the factual matrix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
