Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Narayan Jain Versus The Addl. Director General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, The Commissioner of Customs

2015 (9) TMI 974 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Seizure of goods - After order of release of goods instead of refund the goods or paying the value in full revenue refunded only the partial amount - Held that:- In order to give quietus to the issue, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2004 followed by reminders dated 07.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 issued through his lawyer and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tioned by the respondents, together with interest, he has before this court with this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 12.04.2002, the son of the petitioner was to undertake a trip to Delhi by Indian Airlines Flight (IC 44). While so, on the basis of a reliable information that some goods were being smuggled, the revenue officials intensified the search operations. During such surveillance, the son of the petitioner was intercepted in the airport at Chennai and on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a show cause notice came to be issued on 28.08.2015 (sic) under Section 124 of the Customs Act by the customs authority calling upon the petitioner as to why the goods could not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed on him and on his son. The petitioner sent a suitable reply refuting the allegations. The goods so seized were valued at ₹ 11,66,000/- by the authorities. After holding an enquiry in the matter, by order dated 19.04.2003, the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his letter dated 19.03.2004, when he claimed the value of the goods, he was paid only a sum of ₹ 7,29,327/- alleging that the goods were disposed of only for ₹ 7,29,327/-. However, according to the petitioner, he received the said amount without prejudice to his rights. Thereafter, he sent two notices through his counsel on 07.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 respectively claiming refund of balance amount, but there was no response. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adjudicatory proceedings were conducted and finally, the authority decided the matter in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner and his son were neither liable to be prosecuted nor the goods were liable to be confiscated. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to approach the authority concerned for the early release of the goods so seized. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his representation. But, to his shock and surprise, he was informed by letter dated 12.12.2003 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version