9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by an Order-in-Original passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.12.2016. The 2nd respondent has, by the impugned order, ordered absolute confiscation of 23 number of gold bars totally weighing 23,000 grams by exercising powers under Section 111 (d) and 111 (e) of the Customs Act; ordered absolute confiscation of the seized material object of no commercial value viz. the black colour Kata cloth pouch and the Biege colour Salvatore Ferragamo Tweed pouch used for packing the smuggled gold bars; imposed a penalty of Rs. 66,00,000/- on the petitioner in W.P.No.4834 of 2017 under section 112(a) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 114AA of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 66,00,000/- on the petitioner in W.P.No.4916 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahazar and the voluntary statements the petitioners through their counsel sent a letter dated 04.03.2016 informing the second respondent that the petitioners have been detained under the COFEPOSA Act by order dated 22.07.2015 and they are in judicial custody in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and the noticees desired to be heard in person at the time of personal hearing and therefore requested that the personal hearing may be adjourned, as the counsel is unable to contact his clients. 7. Further, as mentioned earlier, request was made to furnish the relied upon documents as early as possible and after receiving the same, they will supply additional reply to the show cause notice. It appears that there was no further reply sent to the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion, however the declaration card was neither placed before the detaining authority nor supplied to the detenu despite asked for in the representation dated 29.09.2015. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the documents relied upon were supplied to the detenu. However, in the rejection order dated 28.10.2015, nothing is mentioned about supply of declaration card. 10. The second respondent cannot get over the above finding as it is the finding recorded by the Court of law. This finding is contrary to the finding recorded by the second respondent in paragraph 127 of the impugned order stating that all the relied upon documents were given to the petitioners even at the time of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. This is sufficient to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act does not prohibit application of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs either could not have passed the order on the basis of the materials which were known only to them, copies whereof were not supplied or inspection thereto had not been given. He, thus, could not have adverted to the report of the overseas enquiries. A person charged with mis-declaration is entitled to know the ground on the basis whereof he would be penalized. He may have an answer to the charges or may not have. But there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in law he is entitled to a proper hearing which would include supply of the documents. Only on knowing the contents of the documents, he could furnish an effective reply. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
