Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2000
Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)369; 2000CriLJ2094; 84(2000)DLT854; 2000(53)DRJ501; 2000(69)ECC758; 2000LC36(Delhi)
..... the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to bail. the petitioner is accused of offences under sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the customs act, 1962. on conviction, the maximum sentence that can be imposed on the petitioner is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and ..... committed offences punishable under sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the customs act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the offence under section 132 of the act is bailable and the offence under section 135(1)(b) of the act is non-bailable. the petitioner was arrested on 4.8.1999 and ..... and penalty, provisions have been made under section 111 of the customs act and section 63 of fera for confiscation of the goods/currency/security/money/property in respect of which the offence was committed. 14. the ..... not possible for the reasons mentioned in the report. the petitioner has denied that the seized goods are covered under section 123 of the customs act. according to him there is nothing on record to show how the various varieties and blends seized by the respondents meet the description 'fabric ..... economic offence. it is significant that even though additional limitations on grant of bail have not been specified in legislations like the customs act and the foreign exchange regulation act, considering the nature of the offences and in the interest of society and the state, in addition to the provisions for sentence .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-27-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)360; 2000CriLJ3165; 85(2000)DLT655; 2000(54)DRJ234; 2000(70)ECC399
..... the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. considering the scheme of the said two acts, it is manifest that where the customs act, 1962 prescribes the offences and simultaneously specifies the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences, the ..... for short to be hereinafter referred to as the 'act') on the belief that they are liable to confiscation, can only be disposed of as per the provisions of the ..... of customs, new delhi imposing penalties of rs.25 lacs and rs.10 lacs respectively on them in regard to the importation of the cars in question in india. on the other hand, it was urged by sh.naveen malhotra for the respondents that the goods seized under section 110 of the customs act, 1962 ( ..... a.c.m.m. ought to have permitted their disposal under section 451 cr.p.c. reliance was placed on the decision in department of customs v. m/s. eastern road carriers 1994 2 ad (del) 105. he further invited my attention to an order dated 30th december, 1997 placed ..... the impugned order. decisions reported in air 1984 pat 145 seems to have been misquoted as it pertains to a matter under the provincial insolvency act. decision reported in too has no applicability as in that case the impugned order directing the release of vcr was passed by the magistrate when .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2000
Reported in : 2001IIIAD(Delhi)141; 2001RLR294
..... facts and circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to deduction of the payment of rs.50,000/- made u/s 11 of the customs act, 1962?' 5. tribunal recorded a finding of fact that though assessed had failed to substantiate its explanationn but, certainly, its explanationn was bona fide. reference ..... the korean company that finished goods were supplied to the assessed company due to mistake in their computer. it is evident from record that after customs authorities noticed about form of the cassettes, assessed took up the matter with the korean company. it was clarified by the korean company that ..... along with the bill of entry which indicated the words 'video blank cassettes tape in s.k.d. when the goods reached india, customs authorities raised some doubts and accordingly they opened one of the packets. on opening it was noticed by the authorities that though the bill ..... assessing officer held that as this payment was on account of breach of statutory rules relating to customs duty and, thereforee, was not allowable. he also initiated penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. against the disallowance assessed preferred appeal before the commissioner of income-tax [appeals] (in short ..... cause as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act should not be imposed. assessed furnished its reply. its stand was that disallowance was made only on the basis of order of the collector of customs bombay. neither the assessing officer nor the tribunal had adjudicated the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-13-2000
Reported in : 86(2000)DLT633; 2000(54)DRJ817; 2000LC259(Delhi); 2002(143)ELT57(Del)
..... petition. 2. factual aspects as noticed by the customs authorities and the revisional authority, in brief are as follows: 3. petitioner a holder of indian passport coming from ..... 1. order of confiscation passed by additional commissioner of customs, igi airport, new delhi, directing absolute confiscation of gold bars, collectively weighing 466.400 gms., along with black colour adhesive tape used to wrap the seized gold which was confirmed in appeal and revision under the provisions of customs act 1962 (in short the 'act'), is the subject matter of challenge in this writ ..... required to be done was compliance with the procedure under sections 103 of the act. 5. sections 102 and 103 of the act read as follows:- '102. persons to be searched may require to be taken before gazetted officer of customs or magistrate- (1) when any officer of customs is about to search any person under the provisions of section 100 or section ..... gold was ordered and penalty of rs.1 lakh was imposed on the petitioner. the order of confiscation was challenged before the commissioner of customs (appeals) [in short the 'cc(a)']. said authority on consideration of the statement recorded under section 108 of the act observed that petitioner did not declare the gold bars under seizure under section 77 of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-12-2000
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1288; 2000(72)ECC722
..... under 2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the above questions are, that on 28th october,1987 a complaint under section 135(1)(b) of the customs act,1962 and section 85 of the gold (control) act,1968 was filed against the present petitioner in the court of learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate (in short learned acmm). on 23rd august,1989 inspector (preventive ..... accused. finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and, thereforee, no reliance could be placed on the statement of the accused recorded under section 108 of the customs act as the same was neither proved nor corroborated from any other material on record. she, thereforee, discharged the accused i.e. the present petitioner. the order of discharge was assailed ..... statement of pw-1 should have been read in evidence. it ought to have been looked into as a supporting evidence to the statement recorded under section 108 of the customs act. this observation of the learned asj is contrary to the well understood expression of the word 'evidence'. the words 'all statements' include the examination-in-chief as well as the ..... -1 did not attain the status of evidence, nor on the basis of the same it could be said that statement of the accused recorded under section 108 of the customs act stood proved. 10. in the first revision petition filed by the respondent it did not take any other plea except the ground that it being an economic offence case evidence .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-14-2000
Reported in : 2000(56)DRJ287; 2000(71)ECC491; 2000LC255(Delhi); 2002(143)ELT35(Del)
..... 1999. 4. factual position, so far as relevant for appreciating rival stands, is as follows: notice was issued under section 124 of the customs act, 1962 (for short the act), inter alia, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to: (a) why the seized silk yarn of third country origin should not be confiscated ..... that court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 'prove' means to establish as true by argument or evidence, to subject to a testing process. 'proof', said ..... goods are liable to confiscation under section 111. according to him, the same analogy also applies to a case under section 15(2) of the act and, thereforee, cegat was not justified in holding that the direction for confiscation was in order. 6. learned counsel for respondents on the other ..... been done, was without their knowledge and/or consent. so far as question of leviability of penalty in terms of section 112(b) of the act is concerned, cegat, inter alia, recorded the following finding: 'xxxxxxxxxxxxx in the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the ..... of seizure of the truck. the commissioner of customs, lucknow (in short 'commissioner') directed confiscation of the goods seized as being un-claimed under section 111(d) of the act. seized pvc scrap of indian origin was also confiscated under section 119 of the act. option was given to petitioner to redeem .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-15-2000
Reported in : 2000(54)DRJ400
..... .j.1. the only question that needs adjudication in this writ petition is whether the deputy commissioner of customs respondent no.2 was justified in seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees in respect of three orders passed under the customs act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act').2. a brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the petitioner would suffice. two bills ..... the same day. on 6th april, 2000 petitioner filed three appeals under section 128(1) of theact along with applications for stay under section 129-e of the act before the commissioner of customs(appeals), new delhi- respondent no. 1. it was then noticed by the petitioner that in the meantime, respondent no.2 had sought for enforcement of the bank guarantees ..... on 19th november, 1999. petitioner sought for certain information on 23rd november,1999 in regard thereto. on 15th december, 1999 goods were cleared on provisional assessment basis against payment of customs duty on furnishing of two bank guarantees of a total sum of rs.1,94,287/- (rs.96,354/- + rs.97,933/-). thereafter on different dates up to 28th january ..... a different matter that an assessed can contest the validity or legality of a departmental instruction. but that right cannot be conceded to the department, more so when others have acted according to such instructions, vide collector of central excise, bombay v. jayant dalai private ltd. : 1996(88)elt638(sc) , ranadey micronutrients v. collector of central excise : 1996(87)elt19(sc .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-2000
Reported in : 2003(151)ELT39(Del)
..... government of india, ministry of finance, department of revenue, while dealing with an application under section 129dd of the customs act, 1962 (in short, the act), is subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. by the said order, in terms of section 125 of the act, the revisional authority allowed redemption of the foreign currencies confiscated on payment of rs. 55,000/- as fine ..... . the matter was carried in appeal to the commissioner of customs (appeals).3. it was urged before the said appellate authority that means read was not established there was voluntary declaration and thereforee there should be exoneration. reliance was placed on ..... -99 he had not declared possession of the same. his explanationn was that he was under the impression that the amount was less than us$ 5,000. additional commissioner of customs, igi airport, new delhi passed a spot adjudication order dated 29-10-1999 directing confiscation of the recovered foreign currencies and a penalty of rs. 5,000/- was also imposed ..... hussain to substantiate the plea that confiscation and levy of penalty were not called for. the appellate authority observed that after complying with the procedure of section 102 of the act personal search was made and riyals and dirhams collectively amounting equivalent to rs. 2,23,251/- were recovered. petitioner is a frequent, traveller.4. though he claimed to be a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-08-2000
Reported in : 2000(55)DRJ820; 2001(73)ECC46; 2001(128)ELT54(Del)
..... enchanted the value from rs. 4,34,835/ to rs. 6,44,997/- and further ordered for confiscation under section 111(m) of the customs act, 1962 (in short, the act). however, he imposed redemption fine of rs. 2,00,000/- and a penalty of rs 50,000/- in addition to duty of rs. 1 ..... e) next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the goods to the central government under the provisions of this act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if any shall be paid to the owner of the goods.' 7. on a bare reading of the provisions ..... . on 15.6.1999 the said authority directed checking of the goods. on 28.6.1999 the goods were examined by the officials of the customs department . on 2.8.1999 petitioner requested for a personal hearing which was granted, during the hearing, the petitioner submitted that the declared value is ..... payment to the consignor of the imported toys. shipper approached the petitioner to buy the materials. the shipping agent filed an undertaking with the commissioner of customs, inland container depot (in short the commissioner)and permission was accorded to amend the import general manifest in the name of the petitioner. on 11 ..... this case is a classic example of how simple matters get complicated by authorities. as factual scenario would go to show to a large extent that customs officials were largely responsible for the confusion and impasse created.2. in a nutshell the factual position asserted by petitioner and largely intraversed is as follows: .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-15-2000
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1154; 2001(75)ECC510
..... . 11,31,390/-. the articles were seized and confiscated. statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 108 of the customs act, 1962. the petitioner was arrested and produced before the duty magistrate. complaint under sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the customs act, 1962 was filed. order of detention was passed on 26th november, 1999 under section 3(1) of the cofeposa and the ..... board may not take cognizance of the same. but in the present case, written request was made to the advisory board which had been rejected without assigning any reason. this act of denial of his right to adduce his evidence in rebuttal infringed his legal right. it amounted to violation of the fundamental right of the detenu as granted by the ..... . ai-319. he was carrying two checked in baggage beside one hongkong duty-free polythene bag as cabin baggage. he walked through the green channel and was asked by the customs officer whether he was carrying any dutiable item or gold or silver to which he replied in negative. however, on being checked by .....Tag this Judgment!