9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht No. HY 421, as a tourist, and landed at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport on 26th April, 2024. 3. He was carrying some gold chains and gold earrings etc., and the same was detained by the Customs Department at the Airport itself. The following is the details of the detained goods: "(i) Four Gold Chains Purity 587 Weight 65 gm (ii) Two gold rings Purity 587 Weight 06 gm (iii) One pair and three gold earrings Purity 616 Weight 29 gm (iv) Two gold bracelet purity 586 Weight 12 gm" 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that after the detention receipt bearing DR No. DR/INDEL4/26.04.2024/52613 was issued, he did not receive any communication relating to show cause notice or any order which has been passed against him. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d allowed the same for re-export from India only by the Pax since the passenger is an Uzbekistan national having Uzbekistan Passport No. FA1519856. The redemption is to be allowed after the completion of legal formalities in this regard and also fulfilment of any regulatory clearances/ approvals required. The offer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax shall not dispute the identity and valuation of the detained goods. The offer of redemption shall cease after 'One Hundred Twenty Days' from date of the receipt of this order; v) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 47,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Only) on the passenger Gayrat Djabarov under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962." 6. In addition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. *********** ************** ************* 16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order in Original by the said authorised representative has been placed on record by the Respondent. A perusal of the same would show that the Petitioner had complete knowledge of the said order and that he has failed to avail of his remedies in accordance with law. 11. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to pay the fine which is being imposed in the Order in Original for release of the goods fine and penalty. 12. In view thereof, since the order has itself permitted the Petitioner to redeem the goods subject to the payment of a fine of Rs. 58,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 47,000/-, let the Petitioner deposit the same with the Customs Department within a period of four weeks from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
