TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... chain 24 Karat purity totally weighing 348 grams to the petitioner. 2. The respondents have declined to return the jewels through the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr.V.Malaiyendran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Nandakumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by M/s.S.Ragaventhre, Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working at Dubai for the past one year. The petitioner arrived in Chennai Airport on 09.02.2020. The petitioner was possessing gold chains, but the Customs Officers seized the gold under threat and coercion. The con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... abroad for more than six months and passport. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2021 after considering the rival submissions and the decisions relied upon by the petitioner therein, directed the respondents therein to release the gold jewels in question, provisionally, to the petitioner therein, forthwith, on payment of customs duty and the redemption fine, as per the Notification dated 01.03.2003 and as per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to the adjudication proceedings to be conducted by the authorities concerned and also directed the petitioner therein to cooperate fully in the said proceedings. Against the said order, the Department had filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.582 of 2011 before the First B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iii. W.P.No.5148 of 2018 filed by Barakathnisa vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and others vide order dated 20.04.2018 granted relief to the petitioners therein. Thus, the consistent view of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the learned Single Judges of this Court is to return the seized gold to the passenger/owner on payment of 50% of the duty. It was also further clarified that if the petitioners therein are found guilty, it is always open to the authorities to proceed further in the manner known to law. 8. Once the gold is seized by the proper officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner is entitled to release of the gold, which are detained pending adjudication proceedings, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Standing Counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in A.Krishnamoorthy vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2022 (381) ELT 59 (Mad)] and submitted that in a similar circumstance, this Court in the aforesaid decision directed the petitioner therein to pay 50% of customs duty in cash and furnish 50% security in the form of bank guarantee for the balance 50% of the customs duty and on production of such bank guarantee and payment of duty, the seized gold chains are directed to be released forthwith. Hence, the same condition may be imposed, so that, the revenue of the Nation would be saved. 10. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials this Court has giving its anxious consideration. It is seen that the respondents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l exist a fundamental distinction between what is prohibited and what is restricted. We therefore, find no error with the conclusion of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court that the respondent was entitled to redemption of the consignment on payment of the market price at the reassessed value by the Customs authorities with fine under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.'' Further, the Delhi High Court in Vaibhav Sampat More vs. National Investigation Agency, through its Chief Investigation Officer [supra] held that import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. Thus, import of gold is not prohibited, but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. 1....