TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restoring Revision Application before the Respondent No.01 herein u/s. 129DD of the Customs Act, 19562 against Order-in-Appeal No. AHD/CUSTM/000-APP-320-15-16 dtd.20/01/2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad; e. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/(s) that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioner." 2. Brief facts leading the present petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner was working as Airport Supervisor in Air Arabia during July, 2013. Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), received a specific information that one passenger Mr. Mayur Keshubhai Kuchhadiya was arriving by Air Arabia Flight No.G-9-0481 from Sharjah at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (SVPI Airport), Ahmedabad on 24.07.2013 and he attempted to illegally smuggle gold, jewellery and some foreign currency notes. The said passenger is alleged to have handed over the goods to the airline staff of Air Arabia at the time of disembarking from the aircraft and a trap was laid by the officers of DRI. The Airport officers found that there w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms, which chose to adjudicate in detail entire dispute and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under section 112(a) of the Customs Act upon the petitioner, particularly noticing the CDRs and also highlighting position of the petitioner as the Airport Supervisor of Air Arabia and also for his having access to the Airport including to the most sensitive areas like tarmac and the aircraft . It also held that the access permitted to him was for the purpose of providing service to the passengers embarking and disembarking from the Airport. He, however, misused the access given to him by even facilitating the smuggling of gold jewellery. He was since aware of the fact that the persons authorized to use all areas of Airport are not are checked by the Airport security while leaving the Airport, he used the knowledge of Airport procedure and facilitated smuggling of gold jewellery through the departure hall of the Airport and, thereby, misused his authority as Airport Supervisor. He also ensured that the Air Arabia staff members, Mr. Dhaval and Mr. Arpit both remain stationed at the rear exit door of the Aircraft for receiving the parcels containing gold jewellery from the passenger and, thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Arabia from July, 2013 and the case was booked on the basis of information that Mr. Mayur Keshubhai Kuchhadiya was arriving in Air Arabia flight and was carrying gold jewellery and foreign currency and on laying trap, the confiscated articles were found from the two airline staff at the SVPI Airport. It is the say of the respondents that no penalty was imposed under section 112(a) by the Additional Commissioner at the time of passing the order in original. However, penalty under section 112(b) was imposed amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs. 5.2. The petitioner approached the Commissioner(Appeals), who reduced the penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 01 lakh. 5.3. Aggrieved respondent filed revision application before the Principal Commissioner & ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India against the order in appeal, who vide order dated 19.11.2018 confirmed the order dated 20.05.2015 issued by the Additional Commissioner (Customs), Ahmedabad upholding the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. According to the respondents, there would not be any requirement for a separate show cause notice before enhancement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nged to Aircraft Supervisor of Air Arabia, Ahmedabad Shri Jay Sudhirbhai Vaidya, the present petitioner. 7.1. The petitioner though claimed ignorance of any bag having been received from the passenger, in fact, the record reveals that he had asked Mr. Dhaval and Mr. Arpit, the ground handling staff members to be at the rear exit of the aircraft and receive the packets from the last passenger, who was disembarking from the aircraft. Mr. Dhaval admitted that he along with Mr. Arpit had received the three packets from the passenger, who was the last to disembark from the aircraft. In the event of any issues, they both were asked by the petitioner to take all the three bags out of the Airport and, thus, Mr. Arpit had left the Airport and kept the bags at his residence. 7.2. The three packets were retrieved by the DRI from the residence of Mr. Arpit. These bags when examined, the first one contained USD 10,000/-, the second bag contained assorted jewellery i.e. bracelets, bangles, ear rings, pendants of yellow metal, which appeared to be gold and examined by the Government Approved Valuer. The total value of the gold weighing 3073.43 grams along with making charges amounted to Rs. 86,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... handling work was carried out by other security supervisor and his boss Manvendra Singh Vaghela. He had instructed the passenger to disembark from the rear door, as he had received phone call from Jagdishbhai and received three packets. He also had admitted that he and Firoz Sheikh Alam had visited Dubai on a holiday and met Jagdishbhai. He knew Jagdishbhai through one of the acquaintances. This petitioner further provided the details as to how proposal was made to smuggle gold from Sharjah in the flight, where the role of his would be restricted to collecting the gold parcels from the person, who carried the same in the flight and to take it out from the Airport for which he was promised some monetary benefits. Matter was then discussed between him and Firoz Sheikh Alam and accepted the proposal of Jagdishbhai in facilitating and taking out the gold jewellery from the Airport. Mr. Dhaval and Mr. Arpit also were included being the ground staff and one Assistant Supervisor Sameer Mansoori of M/s Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. also was with them. These parcels were collected from the passenger and once they came out from the Airport, in his vehicle being Chevrolet Beat having registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01 lakh to Rs. 10 lakhs. 12. Apt would be refer to section 129DD of the Customs Act at this juncture. "1[129DD. Revision by Central Government.- (1) The Central Government may, on the application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 128A, where the order is of the nature referred to in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129A, annul or modify such order: 2[Provided that the Central Government may in its discretion, refuse to admit an application in respect of an order where the amount of duty or fine or penalty, determined by such order does not exceed five thousand rupees.] Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "order passed under section 128A" included an order passed under that section before the commencement of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1984*, against which an appeal has not been preferred before such commencement and could have been, if the said section had not come into force, preferred after such commencement, to the Appellate Tribunal. 2[(1A) The Commissioner of Customs may, if he is of the opinion that an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 128A is not legal or proper, direct the proper officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and motor vehicle and also for the imposition of penalty. This was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority in order in original by an elaborate discussion of entire materials. As reflected earlier, when the appeal was preferred against the order in original, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under section 128A had reduced the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakhs, against which the revision application under section 129DD of the Customs Act was preferred where the DRI approached for revision of the said order in appeal. 13.1. Sub-section (5) of section 129DD precludes passing of order of enhancing any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscation of goods of greater value, unless while passing order under section 128A, the appellate authority has enhanced any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or has confiscated goods of greater value. However, if the Appellate authority has not enhanced as provided under sub-section 5(a), issuance of notice to the person affected by the proposed order, is insisted within one year from the date of the order sought to be annulled or modified. In other words, for enhancement of penalty or fine, issuance of notice within one y....