ABDUL HAMEED Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner herein to quash Exts. P5, P6 and P10 orders passed by the respondents 1,2 and 3 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the goods covered by Ext. P4 detention certificate to the petitioner unconditionally. A further prayer by way of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 1 to take back Ext. P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner on file and to dispose of the same on merits is also sought for and in consequence thereof to direct the first respondent to condone the delay in preferring the revision petition and consider and dispose of the same on merits.

(2.) The petitioner arrived at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 2-1-1996 from Dubai. According to him he is eligible for Transfer of Residence (T/R) facility, since he had stayed abroad for a period exceeding three years prior to his arrival on 2-10-1996. It is his case that on his arrival on 2-10-1996 the unaccompanied baggage despatched by him from Dubai arrived at Thiruvananthapuram on 9-10-1996. According to the petitioner, in Ext. P1 bill the name and address of the sender and consignee was inadvertently shown as Mrs. Shyla Begam Subaida Beevi, Kollam instead of the petitioner, Mohammed Ibrahim Abdul Hameed. On coming to know about the mistake committed by the cargo staff a fax message was sent by Lufthansa Cargo Ways to the Indian Airlines to amend and read the name of shipper and consignee as the petitioner, instead of Shyla Begam Subaida Beevi. The said communication has been marked as Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, the Clearing Agency issued necessary certificate stating that the said mistake was committed by the staff due to oversight and that the passenger is not responsible for the same, which certificate is maked as Ext. P3. Thereafter the Indian Airlines authorities issued necessary delivery order in the name of the petitioner so as to enable him to take delivery of the goods and based on the delivery order the petitioner filed baggage declaration for the clearance of his baggage and appeared before the unaccompanied Baggage Unit of Air Cargo Complex on 26-10-1996. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence attached to the Air Customs Office, Thiruvananthapuram obtained statements from the petitioner on 25th and 26th October 1996 alleging that the goods did not belong to him and that he had not booked any goods as claimed. According to the petitioner, the said statements were obtained from him under threat and force as he had already retracted those statements obtained by the Officers from the petitioner. Relying on the statement obtained by the D.R.I. Officers from the petitioners the Additional Commissioner of Customs held that the goods do not belong to him and that the brand new consumer goods are imported in violation of Exim Policy and the provisions of the Customs Act and accordingly confiscated the goods, imposing personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The personal penalty has already been paid by the petitioner on 29-10-1996.

(3.) Aggrieved by Ext. P5 Order the petitioner preferred an appeal under S.128 of the Customs Act 1962 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and prayed to set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and release the goods on payment of duty. The appellate authority, under Ext. P6 dismissed the appeal holding that there is nothing on record to show that the statement obtained from the petition was by force and that the petitioner has not given any documentary evidence independent of his statement to establish his connection with the goods. It is submitted that though Ext. P6 order was received on 24-12-1996 revision petition could not be filed in time under S.129 DD of the Customs Act since the petitioner was laid up due to the complications developed in his back bone. Finally the petitioner filed the revision petition before the first respondent on 20-8-1997 challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the second respondent. The revision petition filed under Ext. P7 was accompanied by separate petition for condoning the delay of four months and 27 days in preferring the revision petition. The delay petition has been marked as Ext. P8. It has been stated in Ext. P8 that the petitioner was laid up due to the complications developed in his back bone and he was prevented from moving as round and that he would produce the medical certificate and the treatment chart at the time of hearing the case. However under Ext. P10 the revision application was rejected as time barred. The said order passed by the Government of India, ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) dated 15-12-1997 is reproduced hereunder: