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 Immediate Return of Wristwatches to Petitioner; Customs Lacked Grounds for Detention After Penalties Paid.</h1> <h3>Ajay Kumar Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.</h3> The court directed the release of wristwatches detained by Customs Authorities to the petitioner after finding no justification for withholding them. ... Smuggling - Seeking release of goods - Hublot Big Bang watch marking 142651 and Bvlgari Serpenti watch - the Revenue has not released the goods to the petitioner as yet (as ordered by the court) - HELD THAT:- Mr Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that the Revenue has preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisional Authorities, which is pending. He submits that in view of the pendency of the said proceedings, the goods in question have not been released. However, he has been unable to point out any provision in the Customs Act, which entitles the Revenue to retain the goods after the concerned party has paid the redemption fine as well as the penalty as determined. Merely because the Revenue seeks to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority is no ground for non-compliance of the said orders. The respondents are directed to handover the goods in question to the petitioner (within a period of two working days) as there are no justification for the respondent to withhold the release of the said goods - petition allowed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the detention and seizure of wristwatches by Custom Authorities, the order of confiscation and redemption of the seized goods, non-compliance with the order-in-original by the Revenue, disposal of appeals by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and the release of goods to the petitioner.Detention and Seizure of Wristwatches:The petitioner, detained upon arrival in New Delhi, was found in possession of two wristwatches valued at about &8377;39,61,100. The goods were detained and seized on 07.08.2021, leading to an order of confiscation by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport. The order included details of the confiscated items, penalties imposed, and an option for redemption and re-export to Dubai, UAE.Non-Compliance with Order-In-Original:After the petitioner and co-noticee deposited the imposed penalties and redemption fine, the goods were not released by the Revenue. This led to the petitioner filing a petition before the Court, seeking compliance with the order-in-original dated 28.12.2021. Despite the appeal lodged by the Revenue, the Court directed the release of goods if the appeal was not listed within two weeks.Disposal of Appeals by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):The appeals filed by the Revenue, petitioner, and co-noticees were heard and disposed of by an order-in-appeal dated 28.06.2022. The value of the goods was re-determined, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine and penalties imposed. However, the Revenue did not release the goods to the petitioner post the disposal of appeals.Release of Goods to Petitioner:The Revenue, citing a pending Revision Petition before Revisional Authorities, did not release the goods despite the petitioner complying with the redemption fine and penalties. The Court found no justification for withholding the release of goods and directed the respondents to handover the goods to the petitioner within two working days, allowing the petition in favor of the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
