TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on wherein admittedly, a penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/- was imposed upon the Petitioner. As such, in view of the aforesaid divergent stand taken by the respective parties in regard to the valuation of the goods smuggled by the Petitioner in India in the subject manner in issue and also as to the applicability of the Circular No.27/2015-Cus, this Court, in the interest of Justice, Fair Play, Equity, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, sets aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and allows the Criminal Revision Petition. - Decided in favour of appellant - Crl.R.C.No.462 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2016 - M. Venugopal, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Sankarasubbu For the Respondent : Mr. M. Venkateswaran Special Public Prosecutor ORDER The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.3808 of 2015 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-1, Emgore, Chennai. 2.The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-1, Egmore, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P. No.3808 of 2015 dated 11.03.2016 in R.R.No.22 of 2009 (filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate, Egmore, Chennai in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Court contending that the impugned order is incorrect, illegal and unjust in regard to the facts of the case and as such, the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of Justice. 4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the trial Court had not appreciated the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M.Mathew V. State of Kerala reported in 1992 AIR 2206 wherein it was mentioned that the Magistrate can very well drop the proceedings at the instance of Accused persons. Therefore, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the view of the trial Court that prosecution alone could file a petition to drop the proceedings is quite contrary of Law. 5.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphatically submits that the Ministry of Finance in Circular No.27/2015 dated 23.10.2015 with retrospective effect had mentioned a fact that the Government of India had fixed a threshold limit for launching prosecution and also decided to drop the proceedings in respect of matters coming within the aforesaid limit. 6.The Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Petitioner and since he was absconding, the same was notified by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu as per Order in G.O.No.S.R.1/570-9/2009 dated 06.12.2009 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.50 dated 23.12.2009. Also that, his representation dated 02.03.2010 was rejected by the Director, CEIB vide order F.No.686/09/2010 dated 27.04.2010. 10. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner filed W.P.No.4741 of 2010 and obtained an interim stay of the execution of the Judicial Order and further that, the interim stay was periodically extended and that the stay is still in force. Furthermore, the said Writ Petition is pending for final orders. 11. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent projects an argument that in the instant case (O.S.No.5/2010-INT), the market value of the goods smuggled by the Petitioner was approximately ₹ 31.83 lakhs and in fact, the valuation of smuggled goods at ₹ 21,22,150/- as per the Order-in-Original No.12/2010-ADC (Air) was not merely a mechanical replication of the internet prices of the smuggled goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty even after elapse of six years of adjudication. In substance, the Circular No.996/3/2015- CX dated 28.02.2015 banked on by the Petitioner is not applicable to the facts of his case. 16. As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner places heavy reliance on the contents of Circular No.27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.2015 and takes a plea that the communication sent to the Customs Officials reference to the dropping of Criminal Proceedings pending against the Accused committed offences to the value of ₹ 20,00,000/- in case of baggage and outright smuggling cases and ₹ 1 crore in case of appraising cases and commercial frauds. 17. In the present case, the significant stand taken on behalf of the Respondent is that the market value of the goods smuggled by the Petitioner in the instant case (O.S.No.5/2010 INT) was approximately ₹ 31.83 lakhs and that the valuation of smuggled goods at ₹ 21,22,150/- as per the Order-in-Original No.12/2010-ADC(Air) was not merely a mechanical replication of the internet prices of the smuggled goods, but an abatement of 40% was allowed towards duty and profit and that too on the least price of such goods availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective parties in regard to the valuation of the goods smuggled by the Petitioner in India in the subject manner in issue and also as to the applicability of the Circular No.27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.2015, this Court, in the interest of Justice, Fair Play, Equity, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, sets aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the trial Court and allows the Criminal Revision Petition. 22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.3808 of 2015 in R.R.No.22 of 2009 is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons ascribed in this Criminal Revision. The trial Court is directed to restore the Crl.M.P.No.3808 of 2015 to its file and to dispose of the same afresh, by calling for necessary materials/details from the Respondent as to how the valuation of the goods smuggled by the Petitioner in O.S.No.5/2010 INT was approximately arrived at ₹ 31.83 lakhs and further, how the valuation of smuggled goods was arrived at ₹ 21,22,150/- as per the Order-in-Original No.12/ 2010-ADC(Air). Further, the trial Court, after securing the aforesaid details/particulars, is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
