Page 139 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] SEGUDAWOOD AMEER v. ADDL. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT), CHENNAI 473

Fire Protection Limited v. The Additional General of Foreign Trade Ministry of Com-
merce and Industry, Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade [2019 (5) TMI 86]
and Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2017 (12) TMI 1114]), I see no
reason to relegate the petitioner to alternate statutory remedy.
10. I find no merit in the stand of the revenue and this writ petition is
allowed. Consequently, the refund shall be paid over within a period of four
weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 473 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
SEGUDAWOOD AMEER
Versus
ADDL. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT), CHENNAI
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT),
CHENNAI
ADDL. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT), CHENNAI
W.P. No. 7141 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013, decided on 25-2-2020
1
Redemption fine and penalty - Quantum of - Attempt to smuggle 32
gold chains weighing 177 grams - First-time offender - Petitioner seeking di-
rections to set aside redemption fine of ` 1,55,000 and penalty of ` 19,000 -
HELD : Customs duty sought to be evaded amounting to only ` 39,598 - Im-
ported gold chains, not prohibited item - Petitioner attempted to smuggle gold
chains and/or acted as accessory for another person - However, benefit of Noti-
fication No. 31/2003-Cus., extended and same not challenged by respondent -
Penalty imposable only under Section 112(ii) of Customs Act, 1962 and not to
exceed 10% of duty or ` 5000, whichever is higher - Redemption fine under
Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot exceed market value of confiscated
goods, less duty chargeable thereon and - Hence, redemption fine reduced to
` 50,000 from ` 1,55,000 and penalty reduced to ` 5,000 - Impugned order fur-
ther modified - Sections 112(ii) and 125 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46]
Petition disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Jayaraj, for the Petitioner.
Shri A.K. Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18-1-2013
passed by the 3rd respondent in bearing reference Order No. 29/2013-Cus., un-
der Section 129DD(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had carried with 32 number of
gold chains (22 carat) weighing 177 grams valued at Rs. 3,84,444/- and when he
landed at Chennai Airport with aforesaid gold chains, it was confiscated and was
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Order No. 29/2013-Cus., dated 18-1-2013 by Department of Revenue (Revi-
sionary Authority), Ministry of Finance, Chennai.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  139