Writ Petition No. 2027 of 2014. Case: Sangita Sajjan Jindal Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2027 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri D.B. Shroff, Senior Counsel with Vipin Jain and Prabhakar K. Shetty, Advs. and For Respondent: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly with Jitendra B. Mishra, Advs. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111, 112, 125 |
| Citation | 2015 (325) ELT 65 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | July 27, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 2nd January, 2014.
-
The Government of India was dealing with Revision Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order in appeal dated 12th December, 2012, of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III and the order-in-original dated 21st April, 2011, of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. Mr. Shroff, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of this writ petition would submit that the petitioner is a very respected Indian citizen and engaged in enormous charitable work throughout the world. She is also a Trustee of the World Monument Fund. During the course of some events abroad, she travelled from Mumbai and on her return finding that she was tired, but permitted by Protocol practices to leave the Airport terminal, she left it. However, she authorised two company officials deputed on Protocol duty and who attended the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport to receive her to get the baggages cleared. These officials have specifically stated in their statements that they did not opt for the Green Channel, but one Badal Kumar, the officer and in the employment of the Customs, directed them towards this channel. There is, therefore, a clear contradiction in the impugned orders. The findings are contradictory and inconsistent. Our attention was invited to the statements of the two officials and copies of the same are at pages 98 and 101 of the paper-book. These statements reveal as to how the officials were directed by one Badal Kumar to the screening. The officials were not aware of the contents in the baggages. In the circumstances and when the allegations in the show cause notice are also consistent, the finding at page 283 of the paper-book are clearly perverse. They also ignore the valuation report. It is the Department which obtained opinions of two experts/valuers and copies of the same are at pages 44 and 63 of the paper-book. In the circumstances, imposition of penalty following the confiscation of goods and in the sum directed is vitiated by perversity. The approach of the Government in matters of this nature and where the petitioner''s officers or the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged breaches or violations exhibits complete non-application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial