TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders return of confiscated gold jewellery to petitioners upon payment of fines and penalties</h1> <h3>Rabiya Bee, Mehrunissa, Mumtaz Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport) And Others</h3> The court directed the respondents to implement the Commissioner (Appeals) orders regarding confiscated gold jewellery and penalties imposed on the ... Release of Import of gold jewellery seized - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals and directed the jewels to be returned and imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on each of the three writ petitioners. Since this order was not implemented, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions. - Held that:- it is seen that the orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in September 2015, they have been dispatched on 17.10.2015 and the petitioners received the same. However, the respondents seek to take note of the date of receipt of the orders by the Review Cell i.e. 3.2.2016. Be that as it may, till date, the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) have not been reversed or modified or stayed and even according to the respondents, the Review Cell received the orders on 3.2.2016, but they did not take any steps to file revisions till May 2016. Therefore, this is a fit and proper case where a direction should be issued to the respondents to implement the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) subject to certain other conditions also. - Decided in favor of petitioners. Issues:1. Direction sought to implement orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscated gold jewellery and penalty imposition.Analysis:The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction for the first respondent to implement orders passed by the third respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners regarding the confiscation of gold jewellery and imposition of penalties. The Adjudicating Officer passed an order confiscating the jewels and imposing penalties. The petitioners appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeals on 30.9.2015, directing the return of jewels and imposing a penalty of &8377; 10,000/- on each petitioner. Since this order was not implemented, the petitioners approached the court through the writ petitions.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents informed the court that the Department had filed revision applications challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) orders before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application) in May 2016. The Department received the Commissioner (Appeals) orders on 3.2.2016. However, no steps were taken to file revisions until May 2016. The court noted that the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been reversed, modified, or stayed. Therefore, the court found it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondents to implement the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, subject to certain conditions.Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the second respondent to return the jewels in question promptly, provided the petitioners paid any fines and penalties ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and executed a bond to produce the jewellery if the revision applications were allowed. The respondents were given three weeks to comply with the court's direction. No costs were awarded, and the miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
