TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents, in their Counter. When the petitioner had signed the Mahazar in Tamil, the respondents should have explained the contents of the Mahazar to the petitioner in Tamil and also recorded the same in the Mahazar. Therefore, based on the statement, recorded by the respondents alone, it cannot be said that the petitioner had admitted that he was smuggling the gold. Therefore, by following the decision of Division Bench, the petitioner can get the return of gold, on deposit of 50% of the duty for the value of Gold and on such deposit, being made, the second respondent can be directed to release the gold. - Decided in favour of petitioner - W.P.No.2968 of 2016, WMP No.2453 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 29-2-2016 - M. Duraiswamy, J. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned the gold nor given any Show Cause Notice nor orders has been passed till date. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get release of the gold on payment of duty. 4. Further, according to the petitioner, he is a Domestic Passenger and he had boarded only at Trichy Airport and he is not a passenger like others, who are coming from other Foreign Country and arriving in India Airport and therefore, the detention of the gold from Domestic Passenger by the second respondent is illegal. 5. In the counter, filed by the respondents, they have stated that the petitioner had not declared the gold in his domestic passenger declaration card and that he attempted to smuggle the gold, by not declaring the same and by way conceali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. The learned counsel also submitted that when the petitioner had travelled only from Trichy to Chennai, he cannot be termed as an International Passenger and that he is only a domestic passenger. Therefore, the seizure of gold from him shall not come within the purview of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. Mr.K. Mohana Murali, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the statement, recorded before the respondents, the petitioner had admitted that an unknown person had given him the gold on board the flight, to be smuggled o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition, by directing the petitioner therein to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the gold jewellery and on such deposit being made, the gold jewellery, in question, shall be released forthwith. Further, the Division Bench observed that the authorities shall entertain the show cause notice and decide the matter and the petitioner should cooperate in the adjudication proceedings. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the Customs Authorities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the authorities filed a Review Application in Review Application No.89 of 2011 in W.A.No.582 of 2011 and the Divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
