M. AROKIARAJ Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.M.Syed Norullah Sheriff, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent - the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai dtd. 29/9/2003, modified in appeal by order of the second respondent dtd. 31/12/2003 and confirmed in revision by the third respondent by order dtd. 12/7/2004. Under normal circumstances, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the factual findings recorded by the two fact finding authorities viz., the original authority and the appellate authority and on the finding of the revisional authority rendered after re-appreciation of the facts.

(3.) However, the case on hand is an exception. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and one Mr.Durai Srinivasan calling upon them to show cause as to why the seized 36.073 kgs of cultured pearls, consumer goods and cellphone accessories of foreign origin in trade quantity totally valued at Rs.9,60,430.00 smuggled into India in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 77 and 79 of the Customs Act, read with 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 and para 2.20 of Exim Policy 2002-2007 should not confiscated under Sec. 111(d), (i) (l) and (m) of the Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed on both of them under Sec. 112(a) of the Act. The baggage from which the goods were seized was an unaccompanied baggage. The fact that the petitioner did not travel to the country from which the goods originated is not disputed. In other words there was no proof to show that the petitioner had travelled to Hong Kong and the passport did not contain any such endorsement.