TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation as to how he was entitled to be in possession of the gold? Held that:- There is no room for remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration, as the facts clearly show that no discretion can be exercised in favour of the first respondent - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR) VERSUS P. SINNASAMY, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [2016 (9) TMI 879 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the discretion ought not have been exercised in favour of a smuggler giving an option to redeem the goods and that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Competent Authority, who had denied the release of the goods. During the pendency of this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in exercising the discretion in granting an option to the first respondent to redeem the confiscated contraband gold ? 4. The first respondent was a passenger in an Indian Airlines' flight on 22.11.1999. The said aircraft was undertaking an international run from Kuwait to Ahmedabad and from Ahmedabad to Hyderabad Sector and in the Chennai Airport, a personal check was made on the first respondent and three packets containing 80 Nos. gold biscuits with foreign markings were found concealed by the first respondent in his trousers. The first respondent did not possess any document to substantiate that the import of the gold and its possession were legal. Hence,the gold biscuits we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d after referring to its decision in the case of P.Chinnasamy Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [reported in (2007) 220 ELT 308 (Tri-Chennai)], allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate the same with a view to give an option to the first respondent to redeem the gold. This order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.9.2008 has been challenged by the Revenue in this appeal. 8. Though the first respondent has been served and proof of service of notice through paper publication has been filed and also the name of the first respondent is printed in the cause list, none appears for the first respondent. 9. The short issue, which falls for consideration, in the instant case is as to whether the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Division Bench of this Court, which read thus : 54. The power conferred on the authority without any guidelines may likely to be abused or arbitrarily exercised and in such circumstances, the guidance and the control of exercise of such power has to be gathered from the object of conferment of such power. Non-consideration or nonapplication of mind to the relevant factors, renders exercise of discretion manifestly erroneous and it cause for judicial interference. In Global Energy Limited and another Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission reported in 2009 15 SCC 570, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the exercise of discretion has to be in conformity with the purpose for which, it is conferred, object sought to be ach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
