High Court reduces cash security for memory cards possession at airport, directs balance payment within two weeks.

The High Court modified the order requiring the Appellant to furnish a cash security of Rs.50 lakhs for possessing memory cards at the airport. The Court reduced the amount to Rs.25 lakhs, considering the duty payable, and directed the balance to be paid within two weeks. The Appellant's already deposited Rs.10 lakhs was set off against this revised amount. The modification focused solely on adjusting the cash security, ensuring compliance without delving into the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 22nd September, 2009 disposing of Writ Petition (C) No. 11092 of 2009.
- Appellant found in possession of 57,200 memory cards at Delhi airport.
- Discrepancy in customs duty leviable on memory cards.
- Requirement for the Appellant to furnish cash security of Rs.50 lakhs.
- Appellant's contention against the cash security amount.
- Modification of the impugned order regarding the cash security amount.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order disposing of a writ petition where the Appellant was found possessing a significant number of memory cards at the Delhi airport. The dispute arose regarding the applicable customs duty on these memory cards, with the Respondent claiming a higher duty rate based on the Baggage Rules for international travel. The Commissioner of Customs had initially directed the Appellant to furnish a cash security of Rs.50 lakhs along with other conditions.

2. The learned Single Judge modified the direction requiring the Appellant to provide an undertaking but upheld the requirement for cash security of Rs.50 lakhs. The Judge noted discrepancies in the Appellant's claims regarding the source of the memory cards and highlighted that the Appellant had already deposited Rs.10 lakhs with the Commissioner of Customs.

3. The appeal primarily challenged the harshness of the cash security amount imposed, arguing that the 4% duty amount payable was significantly lower. The Appellant contended that as a domestic passenger, the 35% ad valorem duty under the Baggage Rules should not apply to him.

4. The High Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case and focused on the value of the seized goods and the duty amount. To serve the interests of justice, the Court reduced the cash security amount to Rs.25 lakhs, considering the duty amount of approximately Rs.38 lakhs. The Appellant was directed to furnish the balance of Rs.15 lakhs within two weeks, with the Rs.10 lakhs already deposited being set off against this amount.

5. The modification of the impugned order was limited to the adjustment of the cash security amount, ensuring that the Appellant complied with the revised requirement. The appeal was disposed of with this modification, maintaining the rights and contentions of both parties.

This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the background of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the final decision of the High Court in modifying the cash security amount imposed on the Appellant.

---