COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TRICHY Vs. TAJUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21-22018 passed by the Learned single Judge in W.P. (MD) No. 2985 of 2018. The writ petition was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner for quashing the seizure order made by the third appellant in OR. No. 22/2018-AIU, Trichy, dated 29-1-2018 insofar as the petitioner was concerned and direct the third appellant to return the two gold rings covered by the said order.

(2.) The Learned single Judge following the order passed in W.A. No. 582 of 2011, dated 14-2011 directed the respondent to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the seized items and directed the appellants to release the seized items on such deposit being made. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal has been preferred.

(3.) It is submitted by the Learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly the respondent had stayed overseas only for a period less than six months and therefore, he is not entitled to carry gold weighing 66.700 gms. According to them, he had attempted to smuggle 24 ct. gold unfinished rings. As mentioned in the earlier order, it is further contended that the respondent had violated the Baggage Rules, 2016.