Page 177 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] ODIYANDA AYYAPPA MUDDAIAH v. COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MANGALORE 159

issued by respondent No. 1 and consequential letters dated 1st November, 2019
which are Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 respectively to the memo of writ peti-
tion are directed to be decided by respondent No. 1 as early as possible and prac-
ticable.
33. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and dis-
posed of.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 159 (Kar.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Aravind Kumar and Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ.
ODIYANDA AYYAPPA MUDDAIAH
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MANGALORE
CSTA No. 1 of 2020, decided on 11-3-2020
1
Adjudication of confiscation and penalties under Customs Act, 1962 -
Jurisdiction - Weight of gold bar so confiscated certified at 2566.05 grams of 24
carat gold of foreign origin and valued at ` 77,87,962 - Order under Section 122
of Customs Act, 1962 having been passed by Additional Commissioner of Cus-
toms under Chapter XIV ibid, said authority would fall within the definition
of “Principal Commissioner” in Section 2(8) ibid and as such order passed by
Additional Commissioner of Customs cannot be faulted. [paras 7, 8]
Smuggling of gold - Penalty - Appellant admitted his role in the act of
smuggling of gold on payment of remuneration in his statement furnished
before the Customs officers under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - Appel-
lant never retracted his statement and never contended that statement obtained
from him under threat or duress or coercion - Penalty imposed on appellant
upheld - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 9, 10]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Dakshina Murthy R., Advocate, for the Appel-
lant.
Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - Heard Sri. Dakshina Murthy R., Learned Counsel appear-
ing for appellant and Sri. K.V. Aravind, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent. Perused the records.
2. Based on specific intelligence input received by Directorate of Reve-
nue Intelligence, Mangalore (for short ‘DRI’) that one passenger by name Sri.
Abdul Kader an Indian citizen travelling from Dubai to Mumbai had concealed
certain contraband gold under his seat No. 12A and had disembarked at Mumbai
International Airport leaving the gold in the said seat by making arrangements
for said gold to be retrieved with the assistance of two employees working at
Mangalore International Airport (Domestic) from the aircraft left from Mumbai
to Mangalore and the names of the said employees was Sri. Mohammad Anif
and Sri. Odiyanda Ayyappa Muddaiah (Appellant herein), DRI Officers had
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1399 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  177