(1.) ARGUING the miscellaneous application,. Ms. Sangeeta Jain, learned Advocate submits that the entire case of the department is based on the statement of the appellant; that the appellant in his bail application had indicated that the statement was recorded under duress and thus the statement stands retracted. She submits that no authentic proof for value of the goods was produced by the department. She submits that the department has only estimated the value which was calculated and recorded in the documents. The learned Counsel submits that the goods have been in the custody of the department for the last 3 years and that there are a number of decisions of the various Courts wherein it has been provided that the owner of the goods has a right to redeem the goods. The learned Counsel also submits that the appellant has no other source of income, that he was residing in Hongkong and whatever he has purchased out of his saving accumulated over the years, he had purchased these goods. She submits that the goods are not in the form of drugs or such substances which may harm the nation. She submits that the goods have been confiscated absolutely and were lying with the department for a long time. She, therefore, prays that the appeal may be heard out of turn.
(2.) OPPOSING the request for early hearing, Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR submits that the goods are notified items; that they were rare variety of designer watches inasmuch as a few watches and a few pens value came to Rs. 20 lac (CIF) as estimated by the Customs. He, therefore, submits that since the appellants had not made a declaration of the goods and, therefore, the lower authorities have rightly confiscated the goods absolutely inasmuch as most of the goods were notified items. He, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that there are a number of appeals pending before the Tribunal, the request of early hearing of this case may be rejected.
(3.) HEARD the submissions of both sides. We find that the goods are not covered by the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 so as to be redeemed on payment of fine. The learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any judgment wherein identical goods were required to be ordered to be released on payment of fine by the Apex Court. In view of the facts of the case as brought out by both the sides, we find that no case has been made by the appellants for early hearing. In the circumstances, the request for out of turn hearing is rejected.