MEENA A BHARWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had come to India to show her new-born child which was only about seven months old to her parents. It is stated that her husband is well placed in life and she was carrying sufficient funds for her stay in India with her parents.

(2.) THE journey from Tokyo to Madras had taken an unduly long time and the petitioner, had been re-routed through Colombo due to certain unavoidable reasons. At the time when she arrived at the Madras Air-Port, she is said to have been in a condition of exhaustion and was in a hurry to get through the Customs. She was wearing and having in the baggages, Gold and Diamond studded jewellery and had not declared the same to the authorities. According to the petitioner there was no ulterior motive for the non-declaration of the jewellery. By an order dated 7-7-1989, the Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the Gold Jewellery weighing 52 grams valued at Rs. 4, 680/- and diamond studded jewellery valued at Rs. 25, 400/- under Section 111(d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Act"). He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6, 000/- on the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Act. It is to be noticed here that the petitioner did declare certain jewelleries, but the subject items had not been declared. It was only on an examination of the petitioner's baggage that the above jewelleries were found out. Against the order of the Additional Collector dt. 7-7-1989 an appeal was filed to the erstwhile Central Board of Excise and Customs.

(3.) THE petitioner thereupon issued a notice on 3-5-1984 seeking return of the jewellery. Unable to get any response, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ ofmandamusto direct the respondents to give effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 14-10-1983. THE writ petition was filed on 10-2-1986.2.A counter affidavit has been filed.