9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by respondent No.1 herein and to direct respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's compounding application in accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr. Uzair Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.) for the respondents. 3. Vide the impugned order, the 1st respondent had rejected an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking compounding of the offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4(3) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005. 4. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the respondent-Authorities concerned have not followed the instructions and guidelines issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also issued to the petitioner on 13.01.2017. However, the petitioner did not respond to the same nor did he participate in the adjudication proceedings that followed the show-cause notice in spite of proper service to the petitioner. Finally, the adjudicating authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, passed the Order in Original NO.39/2017, dated 28.04.2017, ordered confiscation of the seized currency and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- on the petitioner under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not questioned the veracity of the said order in original dated 28.04.2017 in any appellate forum or in any High Court. By efflux of time, the Order in Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner tried to smuggle out of India to be also at variance to the stand that he has taken in the compounding application. Thus, the compounding authority found that the petitioner has not made the full and true disclosure of facts while seeking for compounding of the offence and had perhaps moved the petition only with a malafide intention of evading the subsequent prosecution by the competent court of law. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order of rejection of compounding application on 22.01.2025 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before rejection of the compounding application by the authority, the authority ought to have disclosed its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, the said judgments do not prescribe that the adjudicating officer has to give a notice of hearing before passing the impugned order, and to disclose his intention and of rejection of the compounding application before passing the impugned order. 12. In the instant case, after the applicant had submitted his application, the application was first got scrutinized by the compounding officer within the Department and thereafter the petitioner was called for personal hearing. The petitioner had availed the opportunity of personal hearing, appeared before the compounding officer, accepted his guilt and offence and prayed for allowing the compounding application and also expressed his willingness to pay the compounding fees. 13. In the gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
