TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners was treated as non bona fide baggage, the goods therein were rightly treated as prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Act - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos.32981 to 32983 of 2012, M.P.No.1 of 2012 (3 in numbers) - - - Dated:- 5-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar For the Respondent : Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff ORDER Heard Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, the learned counsel for M/s. Royan Law Associates, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, and Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3. 2. The petitioners have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the matters independently, and by assigning separate reasons, dismissed the Appeals by order, dated 29.07.2011. Challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioners filed Revision Applications before the third respondent/Revisional Authority under Section 129 DD of the Act. iii) The Revisional Authority, after carefully examining the factual position and taking note of the fact that the goods have been attempted to be smuggled into India and the goods having not been declared, upheld the absolute confiscation, as ordered by the first respondent and confirmed by the second respondent. 4. The petitioners are before this Court, challenging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D and R), Act, 1992, all goods, to which, sub-section (2) applies shall be deemed to be the goods, imported or exported, of which has been prohibited under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, when the baggage of the petitioners was treated as non bona fide baggage, the goods therein were rightly treated as prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Act. 7. The three authorities have assigned independent reasons for rejecting the petitioners prayer for redemption. There is no factual or legal error in the decision making process for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Thus, for all the above reasons, the petitioners have not made out any grounds for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
