2022 (6) TMI 1265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue), Mumbai, in ORDER NO.1031/2018-CUS(SZ) / ASRA / MUMBAI, dated 30.11.2018, in Revision Application F.No.373/03/B/17-RA, and quash the same and to pass an order of direction, directing to RE-EXPORT the 3 Nos., OF GOLD CHAINS, WEIGHING 599.12 GRAMS, VALUED AT Rs.14,90,730/- without imposition of any Redemption Fine and Penalty and to Refund the Redemption Fine of Rs.6,00,000/- and Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 30.11.2018 passed by the first respondent/The Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2018, the first respondent as t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order confiscating gold subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs.6,00,000/- for re-export. However, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 affirmed. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the Revision Authority has concluded that the petitioner has not indulged in any smuggling or concealment of imported gold which is neither restricted nor prohibited, yet order of the lower authority imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been upheld. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Indian national and while returning from Singapore via Kuala Lumpur had purchased a gold chain weighing about 599.12 grams. It is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siemens Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs 1999 (133) ELT 776 (S.C), which was followed by the Division Bench in Sankara Pandi Vs Union of India referred to supra. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied few other decisions of the tribunal which has referred to the decision of this Court in Sankara Pandi Vs Union of India, referred to supra. 15. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is infructuous inasmuch as the petitioner has accepted the order of the first respondent and has paid the redemption fine and penalty for re-export of the imported goods. 16....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 21. In Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within ....