TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act, 1962. The writ petition has been filed long after the expiry of limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a small time agriculturist and had rented out a small portion of the property, namely, the Shed, measuring an extent of 300 sq.fts., out of 1,000/- sq.,fts., to one K.Balamurugan and the remaining portion was given to one Kishore for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- from 2018 unaware of the fact that the said Kishore was involved in smuggling and export of tortoises from India. 3.It is submitted that the petitioner has not involved in any crime so as to warrant penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is submitted that the respondents have not discharged the burden of proof that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating to the godown/shed, from which the officers of DRI BZU recovered 1487 turtles/tortoises on 10.05.2018. The property documents revealed that the petitioner is the owner and having control over the aforesaid Shed. 6.The learned Senior Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2413 of 2020 (Assistant Commissioner (CT) and othrs Vs. M/s.Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited) dated 06.05.2020, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "15.From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear as crystal that the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, has ruled that there is no conflict of opinion in Antulay cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution." 7.It is submitted that under Section 128 of the Act, there is a specific period of limitation with a further grace period of 30 days for filing an appeal. It is submitted that having failed to exercise the option under Section 128 of the Act, it is not open for the petitioner to approach this Court to quash the impugned order. 8.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent. 9.No dou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aware that the storage of turtles and tortoises was either banned or that the petitioner was acting in connivance with the said Kishore and other persons, who were arrayed as co-noticees in the show cause notice dated 06.11.2018. The petitioner has admitted that he had rented out the premises for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. 12.The impugned order of the 2nd respondent merely records the above. It nowhere discloses that the petitioner was actively engaged in along with the other co-noticees to export turtles and tortoises in violation of Customs Act, 1962 and other enactments and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and cites. The imposition of penalty of Rs.4,50,00,000/- under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 makes an appellate remedy....