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 →

Smt. Rismila Begam. Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Airport) Chennai.

Smuggling - Import of gold / gold jewellery - passing through green channel - benefit of free allowance as per baggage rules denied - applicant had not declared the impugned gold - redemption fine and penalty - the main contention of the applicant for revision is that the respondent failed to see the true declaration made by the applicant on reporting at red channel before the concerned Customs officers at airport and nothing was concealed nor misdeclared by the applicant. Applicant had no past .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he benefit of free allowance to the passenger. As per Section 79 (2) read with Baggage Rules, 1998 the benefit can be extended to the passenger who brought the bonafide goods and truly declared to the Customs. In the instant case both the conditions were not fulfilled by the passenger. - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.373/99/B/13-RA-CUS - ORDER NO. 16/2016-CUS - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER This Revision Application is filed by Smt. Rismila Begam against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ad not declared the impugned gold, but for the timely interception by the proper officers of Customs this would have gone un-noticed. Hence the impugned gold was confiscated by the lower adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.The applicant was given an option to redeem the impugned gold for re-export on payment of fine of under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty of ₹ 37,340/under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 4.2 Both the respondents failed to see that the true declaration made by the Applicant before the concerned officers at Airport and nothing concealed nor misdeclared by the Applicant. 4.3 The respondent ought to have seen that the applicant had no any bad antecedent in the past and further he brought the goods not for trading but for his relatives and friends in India as gifts for them. 4.4 Both the respondents have failed to see that the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de both the lower authorities orders and grant relief fully by set aside personal penalty of ₹ 37,340/- & redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000 /- and render justice. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 07.09.15 & 13.10.2015. Neither the applicant nor respondent attended the hearing. On behalf of the applicant her authorized counsel Shri K, Mohmmad Ismail vide his letter dated 06.10.2015 has sought for the waiver of personal hearing and requested to treat his grounds of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was intercepted by the Customs Officer at green channel. Spot adjudication was conducted on having applicant's request for waiver of Show Cause Notice. During the course of hearing before the adjudicating authority the passenger admitted the fact that she had brought the impugned goods and attempted to walk through green channel without declaring to Customs under Section 77 of the Customs Act,1962. The impugned Order-in-Original ordered for 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

Original the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected. Now the applicant has filed revision application on the grounds in para 4 above for setting aside personal penalty and redemption fine. 8. Government observes that the main contention of the applicant for revision is that the respondent failed to see the true declaration made by the applicant on reporting at red channel before the concerned Customs officers at airport and nothing was concealed nor misdeclared b .....

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 gold but attempted to smuggle the same by keeping them on her person and walking through the green channel with an intention to avoid detection by Customs. 10. Government notes that in the impugned Order-in-Original the record of personal hearing reads as under: Heard the pax. The goods were not declared by the passenger and hence would not have been discovered if not for interception by the proper officers of Customs. Hence the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(1) of the Cus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1962. 10.2 Government opines that any oral submission made before the adjudicating authorities will be a material piece of evidence. In view of specific admission made by the applicant before the adjudicating authority, Government is inclined to hold that the applicant contravened the provisions of Section 77 of the Act, ibid. 11. Government places reliance on the following case laws: (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs I-JOI reported as 1997 (84) .....

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