TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act was rejected. 3. The facts are that the petitioner landed in India from Hong Kong inter alia with ten thousand pieces of micro chips (micro SD cards) valued at Rs.15,80,000/-. These articles were sought to be taken into the country without declaring them; he could not, upon being stopped by the customs authorities, give a satisfactory explanation or produce any evidence with regard to the legality of the goods. He admitted the recovery of goods from his package. In his first statement on 31.05.2011 recorded under Section 108, the petitioner stated that goods were given by one Shri Rakesh Jain of Hong Kong for delivering the same to someone else in Jaipur. In the later statement recorded in July and August, 2011, the petitioner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rakesh Jain to divert the attention. In between his two statements the applicant took a different stand in his bail application and stated that he had reported to the Customs Officer at the Red Channel Counter to declare 10000 Pcs of Memory Cards and pay duty but the Customs Officer instead of preparing necessary papers for payment of duty took him to the office room and made him sit there and dictated the statement dated 31/05/2011. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has not made a true and complete declaration of facts in as much as he did not reveal in his application for compounding anything about the contradictory stand taken by him in his bail application and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. A compar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgues that the kind of offences which the petitioner could have been charged with in this case, did not attract a minimum penalty and that given the gradation of the offences under Section 135, the petitioner most probably would have incurred a fine imposed by the trial court at its discretion. In these circumstances, argued the counsel, with the acceptance of the adjudication order, depositing the duty, penalty and redemption fine, no purpose would have been served by the Revenue's insistence on his prosecution. Counsel stressed that on the other hand, the Revenue would have earned an additional Rs.1.83 lakhs being the compounding fee (10% of the value of the goods + redemption fine). 7. The Revenue resisted the petition urging that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms lower in rank than Assistant Commissioner of Customs except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner of Customs. (3) Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of prosecution, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on payment, by the person accused of the offence to the Central Government, of such compounding amount and in such manner of compounding as may be specified by rules. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to- (a) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under sections 135 and 135A; W.P.(C)3507/2014 Page 6 (b) a person who has been accused of committing an offence under this Act which is also an offence under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 (3) is apparently wide; the concerned official is not empowered to allow compounding in respect of offences under Section 135 and 135 (A) and the class of offences which are spelt out in clauses (b) & (c) of the proviso to Section 137 (3). Likewise, an embargo has been placed upon the power of compounding in respect of a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any offence under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act, 1962. The requirement of disclosure, apparently spelt out in Anil Chanana's case was read in to the power under Section 137 (3) of the Act, having regard to the given circumstances of the case. It was highlighted during the hearing, that the offence with which the importer or smuggler was charged with in that case ....