TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, he boarded Flight No.IX681 Air India Express at Trichy Airport at 12.30 hrs to return to Chennai. The petitioner arrived at Chennai Airport and he, being a Domestic Passenger, on his arrival, even before going before the table, the petitioner was taken to Air Intelligence Unit Room, situated in the Arrival Hall and according to the petitioner, the authorities started threatening him, even though the petitioner had informed before the Airport Customs Officers that he is in possession of 1 Gold Bar and 3 Nos. of Gold Cut Pieces, totally weighing 446 grams. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents threatened the petitioner to sign the statement, typed by the officers and only after signing the statement, they had allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Airport by concealing and not declaring to Customs and to be handed over to a received outside Chennai Airport, for which, he was offered Rs. 6,000/-. 6. Admittedly, the flight had arrived at Chennai from Singapore via Trichy. Further, the respondents have stated that the petitioner did not possess any valid documents for the gold and he had requested vide his letter dated 23.10.2015 that the case may be adjudicated and also for waiver of issue of show cause notice. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Sec.2 (23) of the Customs Act, 1962 import means bringing to India from a place outside India and as per Sec.2(3) of the Act smuggling means any act or omission which will rende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Mahazar was explained to the petitioner was not mentioned in the statement. Therefore, based on the Mahazar, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had admitted, as stated by the respondents, in their Counter. When the petitioner had signed the Mahazar in Tamil, the respondents should have explained the contents of the Mahazar to the petitioner in Tamil and also recorded the same in the Mahazar. Therefore, based on the statement, recorded by the respondents alone, it cannot be said that the petitioner had admitted that he was smuggling the gold. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in W.P.No.1421 of 2011, by its Order dated 28.02.2011, in similar circumstances, had directed the respondents to return the g....