9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), New Delhi. Facts of the case in short are as under:- 2. The importer M/s Rudras Overseas (Company) imported one shipment of Nutrition Supplements vide Bill of Entry No.5795615 dated 23.11.2019 and paid the Custom duty of Rs. 7,53,643/-. Before the goods could be cleared, goods were put to examination by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Indore and were detained under the Panchnama dated 29.11.2019 followed by seizure memo dated 26.12.2019. Ms Rudras Overseas (Company) applied for provisional release of the seized goods. In the course of aforesaid investigation, the residential premises of the petitioner were also searched on 28.11.2019 during which and Indian Currency of Rs. 82,67,900/- and USD 5000/- were found and retain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ldt. : 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (SC), Topland Engines Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India : 2006 (199) E.L.T. 209 (Guj) and Mangalnath Developers vs. Union of India : 2020 (374) E.L.T. 175 (Bom.) and prays for direction to the respondent for release of the currency. 5. After notice, the respondent Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (Legal) has filed an application for placing the final order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and sought dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the facts stated by the petitioner are correct as petitioner's application for provisional release alongwith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and the petitioner for confiscation of the seized currency. Para 5.2 is reproduced below:- "5.2 Further, in respect of Shri Hitesh Nagwani, (i) I order that the cash of Rs. 82,67,900/- (Eighty Two Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Rupees Only) and $ 5,000/- (Five Thousand Dollar) seized under Panchnama dated 28.11.2019, be confiscated under the provisions of Section 212 of the Customs Act, 1962 as sale proceeds of smuggled goods; (ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 72,18,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakh Eighteen Thousand Only) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Hitesh Nagwani. (iii) I impose penalty of Rs. 2,98,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Only) under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat High Court but in the present case, as held above, the Tribunal 12. has set aside the order rejecting the application for provisional release of the currency. The order of Tribunal has attained finality in respect of provisional release but before the goods/currency could be released, the final order of confiscation has been passed, therefore, the order for provisional release cannot be complied with. 12. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) on the point of Principal of Judicial Discipline that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and Tribunal binding on all adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
