TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the parties, as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Writ Appeal Nos.453 to 455 of 2022 And C.M.P.Nos.3273, 3278 & 3279 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice R.Mahadevan And Honourable Mr. Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad For the Appellant in all W.As : Mr.Muralikumaran for M/s.McGan Law Firm For the Respondents in all W.As : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Senior Panel Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 2.These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.Nos.5910, 5908 12756 of 2021 filed by the respective appellants herein. 3.Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants to put forth their case, the first respondent dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants and passed the order-in-appeal dated 27.11.2020. For better understanding, the operative portion of the said order is extracted below: i. I set aside the denovo order no.87/2020-21- Commissionerate I dt.13.07.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication Air) in its entirety, while allowing the departmental appeal (C4/I/153/O/2020-AIR) filed U/Sec.129 D(4) of Customs Act, 1962. ii. I confiscate absolutely the 296 nos. of cut rectangular foreign origin gold bars weighing 15.160 kgs., valued @ Rs.4,53,89,040/- seized vide mahazar dt.14.10.2013 U/Sec.111 (d) (I) r/w. Sec.120(1) of Customs Act, 1962 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o merits. xi. I impose a penalty of Rs.50 Lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) U/Sec.112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon Goutam Chakraborty having address at 6G/1A/5, Gopal Chandra Bose Lane, Kolkata 700 050. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants in WA.Nos.453 and 454 of 2022 filed writ petitions in WP.Nos.5908 and 5910 of 2021, in which, on 10.03.2021, after recording the undertaking given by the learned counsel that the appellants confined the writ petitions to the statutory violations and agitated the other issues before the CESTAT, the learned Judge granted an order of interim stay in respect of recovery of penalty under section 112(a) of the Act, alone. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are quoted below for ready ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned in these writ appeals. 5.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while the show cause notice issued by the DRI itself is to show cause as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under sections 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w section 120(1) of the ibid Act, the first respondent erred in confiscating the seized goods, that too, without following due process of law as contemplated under section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962; and the first respondent ought not to have relied on the statements of the alleged witnesses to the show cause notice to reverse the order of the Adjudicating Authority, when it was the specific contention of the appellants that despite an opportunity of cross examining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
