TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerning situation with respect to the functioning of the Customs Department at I.G.I. Airport. 4. The petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking release of their gold jewellery seized by the Customs Department, I.G.I. Airport. 5. The details of the detained jewellery which were detained vide detention receipts dated 6th September, 2022, are as under: • One gold chain weighing 100gms • One gold chain weighing 51gms • One gold chain weighing 250gms (hereinafter 'gold jewellery') 6. A brief background of the Petitioner's case is that, Petitioners i.e Petitioner No. 1 - Ms. Puja Jayant who is the wife of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ousand Nine Hundred Seven Only) and seized from possession of Pax-1, Pax-2 & Pax-3 under Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m)& 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962; iii) I give an option to redeem the goods confiscated above to the Pax-1&3 i.e. Ms. Puja jayant & Mr. Jayant Shastri on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only ) to be paid jointly or severally, under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and allowed the same for re -export to UAE only. The redemption is to be allowed after the completion of legal formalities in this regard and also fulfillment of any regulatory' clearances / approvals required. The offer of redemption, if accepted, shall be subject to condition that the Pax(s) shall not d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 10. On 19th July 2023, another representation is stated to have been filed by the Petitioners' Counsel, requesting the redemption of the gold jewellery of the Petitioners (hereinafter 'second representation'). 11. Additionally, along with the second representation, the cancelled cheques were also submitted by the Petitioners. However, thereafter, the Petitioners were informed that the gold jewellery had been disposed of. Surprisingly, the OIO neither recorded that the gold jewellery had been disposed of. 12. The Petitioners then sought a refund of the amount, which was also rejected by the Customs Department, on the ground of limitation vide the refund order dated 26th Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Jayant Shastri (D.O.B 10.03.1991): - A Value of gold total weighing 50 grams seized from Pax-3 Rs. 2,68,450/- B Videography/Photography charges Rs. 4,787/- C Applicable duty payable (41.25% of A) Rs. 1,10,736/- D Redemption fine and Personal Penalty imposed on the passenger Rs. 20,000/- E Refundable Amount Rs. 1,32,927/- 10. I find that the applicant has claimed refund of the sale proceeds under the Customs Act, 1962, after deducting Redemption Fine and Penalty. On going through the records, I find that though the redemption fine and penalty has not been paid by the applicant within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of passing of Order-in-Original No. 93/Adj/2023 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the tune of more than 400 grams. The refund order does not mention as to what was the amount recovered from the disposal of the gold jewellery. It is pertinent to note that only the appraised value is discussed in the refund order. Additionally, the OIO also did not record that the goods were disposed of and redemption was permitted. 14. Under these circumstances, despite repeated representations, it is inexplicable as to why the seized gold jewellery was disposed of in this manner. 15. In effect, the Petitioners' goods have been disposed of and even the amounts recovered from such disposal, which the Petitioners are entitled to as per the OIO, has not been paid to the Petitioner, despite repeated follow ups and representation....