TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the British Authority and the same would tantamount to giving a premium to the illegality committed by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the Bill No.p 21288 dtd. 26/6/2010 issued by M/s. P.B.L. Jewellers Ltd. in the name of Meenaben A. Patel -petitioner No.2 herein, for the purchase of the jewellery in question, which was found from the possession of the petitioner No.2 and considering the valuation mentioned therein, no illegality has been committed by the authorities below in considering the valuation of the jewellery in question at 14,500 British Pound and consequently no error and/or has been committed in passing the order of confiscation and redemption - Decided against assessee. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13263 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2013 - M.R. Shah AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Avani S. Mehta. ORDER:- PER : M.R Shah By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 15/2/2013 passed by the revisional authority - Joint Secretary to the Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 herein) later on. The said jewellery items were placed under seizure vide panchnama dtd. 7/7/2010 under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, under the reasonable belief that the same are liable for confiscation. In his various statements of Mr.Ashokkumar Raojibhai Patel (petitioner No.1 herein) were recorded under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 on 7/7/2010, 12/7/2010, 28/10/2010 and 3/12/2010 and he has stated as under : (1) That the Diamond ornaments namely a ring and two bangles as shown in Annexure-A to the Panchnama dtd. 7/7/2010 were gifted to him by his sister for his only daughter. (2) That the value of the above goods was 14500 pounds and that his sister told him to apply for VAT refund and told him that the refund would be received by her. (3) He admitted that he did not declare being in possession of dutiable goods, with the intent of evading payment of the customs duty. (4) He confirmed that he had violated the Customs Act and stated that he was ready to pay the customs duty. 2.2 That all the aforesaid diamond jewellery recovered during the personal search of said Mr.Ashokkumar Raojibhai Patel - petitioner No.1 herein, as detailed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act and said act of omission rendered themselves liable to penal action under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.5 That both the petitioners submitted their joint defence - reply dtd. 31/5/2011. They strongly denied the allegation that gold jewellery was smuggled into India with an ulterior motive to evade the payment of customs duty. It was contended that although as per the purchase bill the value of jewellery was 14,500 British Pound, the actual value of the jewellery was less. 2.6 Personal hearing was held on 8/8/2011. At the time of hearing, it was submitted that as such the said jewellery was gifted by his sister. At the time of personal hearing, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners furnished the Affidavit-filed by the sister of the petitioner No.1 - Ashokkumar declaring the value of the jewellery as 4675 British Pound. 2.7 After considering the defence raised by the petitioners and considering the valuation of the jewellery mentioned in the Bill No.p 21288 dtd. 26/6/2010 issued by M/s. P.B.L. Jewellers Ltd. in the name of Meenaben A. Patel -petitioner No.2 herein, which was found from the possession of the Meenaben A. Patel - petitioner No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f demand of interest under section 28AA / section 28AB and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order that appellants may redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine as adjudged in the impugned orders, pay the penalties as adjudged, and then in terms of section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, clear the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the customs authorities and on payment of other charges, if any. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed and set aside the Order-in-Original to the extent of payment of interest under section 28AA / 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.10 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dtd. 9/3/2012 passed in Appeal Nos.24 and 25 of 2012, petitioners preferred Revision Applications before the revisional authority - Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance and by impugned order the revisional authority has set aside the penalty imposed on petitioner No.2 - Meenaben Ashokkumar Patel and reduced the penalty imposed on petitioner No.1 - Ashokkumar Patel, to Rs.1,00,000/- only (instead of Rs.1,80,732/- as ordered by the adjudicating authority. 2.11 Feeling aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
