Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Zakir Ali Khan Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Airport) , The Additional / Joint Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport - Administration)

2015 (12) TMI 1301 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Detention of goods - Smuggling of goods - Misdeclaration - Confiscation - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- Admittedly, the representation of the petitioner followed by the reminders have not been considered. The respondents are obligatory under law to take a decision for allowing re-export of the goods on payment of aforesaid fine and penalty. Not having done so, has caused serious prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, despite the order of the first respondent, allowing redemption .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the purpose of re-export. - There is no denial with regard to the availability of the goods by the customs authorities even after a period of 5 years. The note issued by the Superintendent of Customs dated 21.09.2015 supports the claim of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the authority is not explained properly in the counter affidavit. In this view also, the continued detention and non-release of the goods at the hands of the respondents cannot be sustained or countenanced - Assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect matter of adjudication proceedings before the first respondent in O.S. No. 58/07-INT / O.S. No. 712/07-AIU and O - in - O No. 03/2010-COMMR (AIR) dated 14.7.2010. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Officers of Air Intelligence Unit intercepted the petitioner, who arrived from Bangkok on 14.11.2007 on suspicion that he might be carrying high valued goods in commercial quantity. Personal search of the petitioner resulted in the recovery of certain number of packets co .....

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 adjudication proceedings had taken place with regard to the seizure of goods from the petitioner and ultimately, the order in original came to be passed on 14.7.2010 with the following conditions. "I. I order for confiscation of assorted precious/semi-precious stones totally weighing 19367 carats and re-valued at ₹ 11,97,885/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five only) (CIF) under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. How .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 6 nos., of polythene covers and 69 nos., of smaller polythene pouches used for concealing the precious/semi-precious stones under Section 118(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. III. I impose a penalty of ₹ 2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Zakir Ali Khan for having rendered the aforesaid goods liable to confiscation." 4. Thereafter, within the stipulated time of 45 days, the petitioner was not able to redeem the seized goods and the requir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the purpose of exercising the option of redemption for the re-export. The said communication dated 02.02.15 said to have been received by the authority was not taken into consideration. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 125 of the Customs Act for the purpose of re-export provides redemption. Because of financial constraint, the petitioner was not in a position to redeem the seized goods within the period of 45 days and even after expiry of 45 days as stipulated 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

ec.125 of Customs Act for the purpose of re-export. The petitioner has indicated to the respondents that he is willing and redeem to pay the fine and the penalty imposed so as to take the option of re-export of the goods under seizure / confiscation, the denial is improper and illegal. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks appropriate direction for the purpose of redemption and for re-export. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent filed a counter and submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version