TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) by releasing the Indian Currencies, subject to the payment of redemption fine and penalty, as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) and furnishing a bond securing the interest of the Revenue - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 41980 of 2016, W.M.P. No. 35928 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Dr. S. Krishnandh for Ms. B. Satish Sundar For the Respondent : Mrs. R. Hemalatha ORDER Heard Dr.S.Krishnandh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s.R.Hemalatha, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said order, by filing the present Writ Petition, to issue appropriate direction. 4. The respondent/Customs Department would contend that, they will not be in a position to comply with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I), on the ground that, they have filed Revision Petition to the Central Government, under Section 129 (d) of the Act along with Stay Petition, and this Revision Petition was filed before the Revisional Authority during May, 2016 and the Revisional Authority has entertained the Revision and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, July, 2016. Therefore, the respondent/Department would contend that the petitioner should have awaited the outcome of the Revision Petition filed by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Authority and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. Such direction was issued by this Court, taking note of the decision rendered in the case of (Malabaar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai and two others) in W.A.No.377 of 2016, dated 28.07.2016, by which, the Appeal filed the person, who sought for release of the goods was rejected. In the instant case, distinction is that, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) concurred with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, and only relief granted to the petitioner was a slight reduction in redemption for fine and personal penalty. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the above findings, this Court is inclined to issue direction to the respondents for implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) by releasing the Indian Currencies, subject to the payment of redemption fine and penalty, as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal-I) and furnishing a bond securing the interest of the Revenue. In the event, the jurisdictional aspect, as in NVR Forgings's case (referred to supra) is rectified and the Revisional Authority takes up the matter, and the Revenue Department is able to succeed before the Revisional Authority, they will be at liberty to proceed against the appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, and the rules framed thereunder. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
