2022 (7) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt. 2.These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.Nos.5910, 5908 & 12756 of 2021 filed by the respective appellants herein. 3.According to the appellants, M/s.Mundhra Bullion Private Limited was engaged in trading of bullion and one Abishek Mundhra (appellant in WA.No.454 of 2022), who was the former director of the said company, on 14.10.2013, carried gold weighing 15.16 Kgs from Kolkata to Chennai, in his hand baggage, after duly declaring the possession of the same to the airport authorities. But, the officials of the DRI seized the same and without any jurisdiction, issued show Cause Notices dated 13.04.2014 to the appellants and other notices. Thereafter, pursuant to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....96 nos. of cut rectangular foreign origin gold bars weighing 15.160 kgs., valued @ Rs.4,53,89,040/- seized vide mahazar dt.14.10.2013 U/Sec.111 (d) & (I) r/w. Sec.120(1) of Customs Act, 1962 covered in the Additional Director, DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit's show cause notice vide F.No.VIII/48/22/2013-DRI (CZU) dt.13.04.2014. iii. I confiscate the small black colour hand bag, packing materials such as plastic container, Bengali Newspapers used for covering the gold bars and the rubber bands U/Sec.118 of the Customs Act, 1962. iv. The appeal of Abishek Mundhra (C4/I/139/O/2020-AIR) is rejected, as it has no merits. v. I impose a penalty of Rs.1 Crore (Rupees One Crore only) U/Sec.112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon Abishek Mundhra, Dire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of interim stay in respect of recovery of penalty under section 112(a) of the Act, alone. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are quoted below for ready reference: " Mr. J.Vasu, learned Junior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondent and seeks some time to obtain instructions and file a counter qua the enhancement of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as a prima facie case is made out only in regard to this issue. 2. Mr. Muralikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the petitioner intends to file an appeal as against the ejection of the appeal by the first appellate authority on all other points, and this is recorded. 3. As regards the enhancement of penalty, the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....verse the order of the Adjudicating Authority, when it was the specific contention of the appellants that despite an opportunity of cross examining the witnesses, was sought for by the appellants, the same was not granted and an order-in-original was passed. The learned counsel further submitted that at the time of admission of the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the order-in-appeal passed by the first respondent, the learned counsel undertook to agitate the issues other than the statutory violation before the CESTAT and restricted the relief sought in the writ petitions to that effect, which submission was recorded by the learned Judge in her interim order dated 10.03.2021. However, without deciding the issue relating to....