TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - 34102 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2010 - T.S. Sivagnanam, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.R. Sundar, for the Petitioner. Shri M.S. Govindarajan, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 19-2-2003 and direct the respondents to exercise the option of redemption of currency confiscated from the petitioner on 6-5-2000 and refund the penalty collected. 2.The petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Authorities at the departure hall of the Chennai Air Port on 6-5-2000 and on examination of his baggage, the authorities recovered Indian and Foreign currency equivalent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders of the authorities ordering absolute confiscation is unsustainable as the authorities ought to have seen that in so far as carrying of Indian currency, there is only restriction on the amount and there is no absolute bar to carry Indian currency. Therefore at least to that extent, the authority should have allowed the redemption. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 172 (S.C.) [Hargovind Das K. Joshi v. Collector of Customs] and certain decisions of the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department would submit that the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods on payment of such fine in lieu of confiscation. 9. In the instant case, the Original Authority passed an order on 6-5-2000 ordering absolute confiscation. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Authority by an order dated 6-11-2000 by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hargovind Das case referred supra, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose to consider the question as to whether to grant the option of redemption or not. On remand, the adjudicating authority took up the matter for consideration and after examining the entire factual position did not exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. This order was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
