2009 (8) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal after holding that the confiscated goods can be redeemed, imposed a fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that these are not prohibited goods. In this petition we are only concerned with the jewellery. We are not concerned with the issue of foreign currency. 3. Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2009 was filed by respondent in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2005]. In Paragraph No. 19 there is a clear statement by the respondent herein that he was claiming ownership in the goods. No other person had claimed ownership in the goods. Under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, provides that in a case where there is an order for redemption of the goods on payment of fine where the owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody, such go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n payment of fine. There was discretion, which discretion has been properly exercised. 8. However, in our opinion, the Tribunal itself decided the quantum of fine. In our opinion, that ought to have been left to the Commissioner (Customs). In the light of the above though we are upholding the order of the Tribunal in the matter of redemption fine as also the release of goods in favour of the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;                Petitioners V/s Dhanak Madhusudan Ramji                  Respondent None for the petitioner. Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi for the respondents. CORAM       &nb....