RAMASAMY Vs. JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order passed by the first respondent, who is the revisional authority, exercising power under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order passed by the second respondent. In the instant case, the third respondent passed an order, confiscating the Gold jewellery carried by the petitioner on the ground that it was not declared and the petitioner in his voluntary statement stated that he was carrying the Gold jewellery given by some other person in Singapore to deliver the same to his family without declaring to the customs. Therefore, the third respondent by order dated 11-10-2011 ordered confiscation of the Gold Jewellery under Section 111(d), (l), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Apart from that, penalty of Rs. 32,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner was represented by a counsel. The appellate authority by an order dated 25-9-2012 held that the petitioner was in possession of Gold jewellery when he arrived from abroad and the same was not declared by the appellant. Further, as per Notification No. 31/2003-Customs, dated 1-3-2003, "eligible passenger" means a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid passport, issued under the Passport Act, 1967, who is coming to India after a period of not less than six months of stay abroad and short visits, if any, made by the eligible passenger during the period of six months will be ignored if the total duration of stay on such visits does not exceed thirty days and such passenger has not availed of the exemption under the Notification No. 31/2003 or under the Notification being superseded at any time of such short visits. The appellate authority further observed that the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions as envisaged in Notification No. 31/2003 and he is not an eligible passenger. Furthermore, commenting on the conduct of the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner did not make true and proper declaration of the Gold in his possession and attempted to smuggle the same and passed through the Green Channel in order to evade payment of Customs duty. Thus, by giving independent reasons, the second respondent confirmed the order of the third respondent, ordering absolute confiscation, as against which the petitioner filed a revision petition before the first respondent. By placing various contentions both on facts and law, the petitioner prayed for permission to re-export the Gold. The revisional authority heard the petitioner, who was represented by a counsel. The revisional authority considered the matter and passed the impugned order, rejecting the revision petition, which is said to be assailed by the petitioner.