Customs Appeal Nos. 24, 75 of 2015 with Notice of Motion Nos. 2190-2191 of 2015. Case: Fayaz Gulam Godil Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Customs Appeal Nos. 24, 75 of 2015 with Notice of Motion Nos. 2190-2191 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Sujay N. Kantawala and Brijesh Pathak, Advs. and For Respondents: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 113, 114, 125 |
| Citation | 2016 (338) ELT 42 (Bom.) |
| Judgement Date | June 06, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
We have heard Mr. Kantawala in support of these appeals.
-
In his submission the appeals raise substantial questions of law and as proposed in the Memo of Appeal in Appeal No. 24 of 2015 which is identical to the other appeal. Mr. Kantawala has taken us through these proposed questions to submit that one of them is based on the contention raised before the Tribunal that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rostam Parvaresh v. Union of India reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 342, would bind the Tribunal. Secondly, whether it is legal and proper for the Tribunal to not consider the position with regard to applicability of Section 111 and Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
This is not a case where the Indian currency was tried to be smuggled out of India. This was a case of an alleged smuggling of foreign currency, but the act was complete on the appellants leaving the Indian shores and reaching Hong Kong. Thereafter, having returned from Hong Kong allegedly with the currency does not merit application of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rather, Section 111 should have been applied. Thirdly, the discretion insofar as the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation should have been exercised in favour of the appellants. In large number of cases even today, the Revenue has been allowing the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. There cannot be different yardsticks as between the others who default in compliance with law and the appellant before this Court.
-
He, therefore, submits that the appeals be admitted.
-
We are unable to agree with Mr. Kantawala and for more than one reason. The facts are not in dispute. The two appellants before us smuggled to Hong Kong, foreign currency concealed in their baggage. These persons were deported back from Hong Kong. Upon landing back in India, they were intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials after crossing the green channel on their arrival from Hong Kong. On examination, it was found that the foreign currency was concealed. On search of one of the persons the foreign currency was found. Thus, the statements were recorded, Panchanamas drawn and after the requisite formalities were completed, both confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution were launched.
-
It is not as if the Tribunal was unaware of the fact that the statements attributed to these persons and recorded by the authorities were sought to be retracted. However, we do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial