KURUVILLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the adjudication order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs as confirmed by the appellate order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the order in revision by the Government of India. By the adjudication order the import of Water Scooter was confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,75,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The said order was confirmed with a modification reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs by the appellate authority and the revisional authority while upholding the redemption fine reducing the personal penalty to Rs. 40.000/-. The Original Petition is against this order.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department raised a preliminary contention on the maintainability of the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his objection he has referred to the judgment in Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. v. Jasjit Singh ( AIR 1964 SC 1140 ) wherein the Supreme Court held that the question as to the propriety of the fine imposed has been examined by the appellate and the revisional authorities. In such a case, they cannot be heard to complain against the impugned order of fine in an appeal under Art.136, when no question of principle or law is involved. The authorities constituted under the Customs Act was acting under the relevant provisions of the said Act as the constitution of Tribunals under Art.136 of the Constitution because they are invested with the judicial power of the State and are required to act judicially. Therefore, the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Since the legal questions as to the applicability of relevant rules are raised and argued, the Original Petition is maintainable.

(3.) The petitioner has brought one Water Scooter model "Yamaha W.C.T. 1100 U 1100 Triple" valued at Rs. 3.75 lakhs as unaccompanied baggage on his claim of transfer of residence concession in terms of Baggage Rules, 1994. The only question that arises for consideration is whether this import requires licence under S.3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The case of the petitioner is that since it was brought under transfer of residence he is entitled for exemption.