MAHENDER SINGH Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present case, who is a permanent resident of village Rana Jageer, P. O. and Tehsil Umer kot, Distt. Mirpurkhas (Pakistan), has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india praying for the release of bangles of the petitioner which were illegally detained by the Customs Authorities at Attari.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner belongs to a Rajput family of Rajasthan but at the time of partition he stayed back in pakistan. All his relatives are residents of rajasthan. To attend the marriage of his close relative on 5. 2. 2007, the petitioner along with his family members namely, wife, two daughters, one son and one relative reached Attari station. According to the petitioner, as per Appendix-E to the Baggage Rules, 1998 (for short 'the Baggage rules') any tourist coming from Pakistan to india can bring personal effects with the condition that the same are re-exported when the tourist leaves India. At the time of immigration check at Attari Station, the daughters of the petitioner were wearing five bangles, weighing about 250 grams. However, the respondent without any rhyme or reason directed the petitioner to hand over the bangles to him. The same were got assessed by the respondent for weight, purity and found that the same were weighing 0. 267 grams valued at Rs. 2,35,761 (Two lacs thirty five thousand seven hundred sixty one only)@ Rs. 883 per gram and the purity was 23 Carat. The officer concerned was of the view that the bangles were, in fact gold in crude form which was not permitted to be brought by the passengers. At the time of detention, the petitioner was issued detention receipt (Annexure P2)No. 104467 dated 5. 2. 2007 mentioning the narration of goods, weight, rate and purity thereof as noticed above. Further in detention receipt in column 5, containing the reason for detention of goods, it was mentioned 're-export out of India' in Column No. 7, it was mentioned that P. P. Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand only ).

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent had passed on the spot an adjudication order No. 518 /jc/07 and had absolutely confiscated the goods and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand only), which is narrated in short as 'pp' in the detention receipt. The request of the petitioner for supply of the adjudication order did not yield any result. This fact has not been denied by the respondent in the written statement. All what has been stated is that the spot adjudication order No. 518 jc/07 has been prepared inadvertently. The petitioner also stated that even though the actual weight of the bangles was 267 grams but in the detention receipt the same was mentioned at 0,267 grams. Still further he submitted that there can never be any intention to smuggle gold from Pakistan to india and that too in such a small quantity as price of gold in Pakistan is higher than the price in India. In fact, the petitioner had come to attend the marriage of a relative and on that occasion, some jewellery was required to be worn by the daughters and wife of the petitioner. Even the detention receipt also mentions bangles five pieces.