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 →

Palaniappan Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport)

2016 (4) TMI 181 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Seeking release and return of 1 No of Gold Bar and 3 Nos of Gold Cut Pieces - Goods possessed by the respondents and the statement taken from petitioner was not his voluntary statement and his signature was taken under threat and coercion - Held that:- it is clear that the entire Mahazar has been typed in English, however, the petitioner had signed in Tamil. Whether the contents of the Mahazar was explained to the petitioner was not mentioned in the statement. Therefore, based on the Mahazar, it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Jayaraj For the Respondent : Mr. K. Mohana Murali ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ligence Unit Room, situated in the Arrival Hall and according to the petitioner, the authorities started threatening him, even though the petitioner had informed before the Airport Customs Officers that he is in possession of 1 Gold Bar and 3 Nos. of Gold Cut Pieces, totally weighing 446 grams. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents threatened the petitioner to sign the statement, typed by the officers and only after signing the statement, they had allowed the petitioner to go outside. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ustoms and to be handed over to a received outside Chennai Airport, for which, he was offered ₹ 6,000/-. 6. Admittedly, the flight had arrived at Chennai from Singapore via Trichy. Further, the respondents have stated that the petitioner did not possess any valid documents for the gold and he had requested vide his letter dated 23.10.2015 that the case may be adjudicated and also for waiver of issue of show cause notice. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Sec.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

110, may, pending 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rusal of the Mahazar, it is clear that the entire Mahazar has been typed in English, however, the petitioner had signed in Tamil. Whether the contents of the Mahazar was explained to the petitioner was not mentioned in the statement. Therefore, based on the Mahazar, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had admitted, as stated by the respondents, in their Counter. When the petitioner had signed the Mahazar in Tamil, the respondents should have explained the contents of the Mahazar to the petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods released, as per Sec.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. This Order was challenged by the Department in an Appeal in W.A.No.582 of 2011 and the Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 01.04.2011, modified the order, passed in the writ 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 .....

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