Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1971 (7) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he was in possession of six items of jewellery and watches that the stones set in one of the items were not diamonds, but were imitation stones and that on a scrutiny the stones set in the jewellery items, were found to be real diamonds. The notice further stated thereupon the petitioner was subjected to a personal search as a result of which four items of gold were recovered that on a thorough examination of his baggage four more items of goods were recovered that all the aforesaid items of jewellery were seized under a mahazar and that the petitioner imported the gold and diamond jewellery unauthorisedly in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and the Customs Act 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rudely made primarily intended for the gold value and that the gold and jewellery were worth Rs. 53,813.14. The Collector accordingly passed an order of confiscation of 29 pieces of gold items and directed the release of a wrist watch on payment of duty and directed the release of two other wrist watches free of duty and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. That appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Government of India. That revision also having been dismissed the petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to qua .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he wrist strap were only imitation stones and not diamonds. 5. I am convinced that none of the foregoing contentions has any sub-stance. The seizure of the articles from the petitioner was on 23-9-1967. The very next day, the petitioner gave a statement before a customs officer who recorded in English. The petitioner signed it after endorsing that he read over the statement and found it to be correct. In that statement the petitioner stated: "I declared these stones are imitation stones and not diamonds". Then he proceeded to state what happened after he made the declaration and referred to the interrogation by the officers with regard to the ornaments worn by him and also with regard to the articles found in his baggage. In the concl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to him on his leaving India". It would be seen from the above section that the question of temporary detention of the baggage for the purpose of being returned to the passenger would arise only in respect of the true declaration made under Section 77. The very act attributed to the petitioner is that he made a false declaration with regard to the stones found in the watch strap, the case of the department being that the petitioner declared the stones to be imitation stones, whereas the stones, on examination were found to be real diamonds. Thus, on the evidence the Collector was of the opinion that the petitioner made a false declaration with regard to one of the items. Four other items were seized from his person and four other items we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it would come into operation only in a case where a true declaration had been made under Section 77. The facts of this case show that the petitioner made a false declaration. It is only on that basis that a further search was made of the person of the petitioner and his baggage was examined. Therefore, the fact that the Collector did not make a specific order rejecting the request of the petitioner for returning the goods on leaving India does not affect his conclusion in any way. 7. Mr. Rajan next contended that having regard to the circumstances under which the articles were seized from the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner imported any article so as to attract the penal provisions of the Act. His argument was that afte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates