Page 141 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] SEGUDAWOOD AMEER v. ADDL. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT), CHENNAI 475

10. It is further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
has also confirmed the position that petitioner had no previous case and had
therefore decided to reduce the redemption fine and the penalty.
11. It is therefore submitted that since the petitioner is a bona fide im-
porter who had purchased the gold chains for his impending wedding for gifting
to his relatives at the time of his wedding, the imposition of redemption fine and
penalty was unjustified.
12. It is submitted that having extended the benefit of Notification No.
31/2003-Cus., dated 1-3-2003, imposition of penalty and redemption fine cannot
be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case as petitioner was employed
in Singapore and was having a work permit and had returned to India after a
period of 22 months.
13. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was eligible for the
benefit of the above notification as he had stayed for more than six months, up-
holding redemption fine of Rs. 1,55,000/- and penalty of Rs. 19,000/- was not
proper.
14. Per contra, the Learned Standing Counsel for respondents submitted
that the petitioner had failed to declare 32 gold chains which he was carrying in
person before the Customs authorities and therefore Section 111(l) and (m) were
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. It was further submitted that under Section 77 of the Customs Act,
1962, the owner of any baggage was required to make appropriate declaration
before the proper officer of the Customs.
16. It was further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had
carried the gold chains in his pant pocket, but had failed to declare the same be-
fore the Customs authorities which led to passing of order-in-original dated 24-7-
2011 by the 1st respondent.
17. It was therefore submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Ap-
peals) has rightly concluded that the gold brought by the petitioner did not con-
stitute a bona fide baggage under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with
paragraph 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy and therefore the “redemption fine
and the penalty” imposed on the petitioner cannot be assailed.
18. It was further submitted that after considering overall fact and cir-
cumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
found that in absence of ingenious concealments of “Gold Jewellery” the benefit
of Notification No. 31/2003-Cus., dated 1-3-2003 was allowed.
19. It was therefore submitted that both penalty and redemption fine
have been reduced and therefore the impugned order of the 3rd respondent re-
quires no further interference.
20. It was submitted that the order passed by the 3rd respondent Revi-
sional Authority would also require no interference as it is not the decision per se
but the decision-making process which can be questioned under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and there is no fault with the decision making process.
The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
21. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the peti-
tioner and the respondents.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  141