important point
If there are demonstrable contradictions or inconsistencies or incompleteness in the case of the applicant then application for compounding cannot be entertained.

judgment

Kapadia, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 17.10.06 in Writ Petition (C) No.12912 of 2006 passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the writ petition filed by Union of India against the Order dated 25.5.06 of the Chief Commissioner of Customs (DZ) in a Compounding Case stood dismissed. By the impugned judgment, High Court has upheld Order No.2/CCC(DZ)/SCM/2006 passed by Chief Commissioner of Customs (Compounding Authority) compounding the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3.On the basis of specific information Anil Chanana-respondent No. 1, who alighted from British Airways flight from London and walked through Green Channel, was intercepted by DRI Officers at the exit gate of the arrival hall of IGI Airport on 11.8.04. On personal search, two sets of diamond earrings were recovered from his coat pocket along with US$1900. Further, an invoice dated 10.8.04 evidencing sale of such earrings to respondent No.1-Anil Chanana along with VAT Declaration Form filed by Anil bearing stamp of Customs Authority, London, was also recovered. Further, the search of his baggage resulted in recovery of two empty plastic jewellery boxes kept inside two cardboard boxes (containers). The value of two pair of diamond earrings mentioned in invoice dated 10.8.04 was of #1,40,847.41 equivalent to Rs.1,16,90,300. On 12.8.04 Anils statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which he stated that the said earrings were gifted to him by his friend in London. The name of his friend was Bhupendra Kansagara whom he had met for the first time three years earlier; that, he got VAT Declaration Form from British Customs so that he could get refund of VAT; that, on arrival he did not declare the value of dutiable goods in the Customs Declaration Form; that though he was a frequent traveller he was not fully aware of Customs Law. On 12.8.04 Anil was placed under arrest for having committed offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘1962 Act’) for failure to declare dutiable goods in Customs Declaration Form and for having walked through the Green Channel with intent to evade the payment of duty and for making willful mis-statements and suppression of material facts. On 16.8.04 Anil voluntarily deposited customs duty amounting to Rs.47,72,521. On 19.8.04 he was granted bail after he had deposited the duty.

4.It is important to note that in his first bail application Anil stated that when he was approaching the Red Channel the DRI Officers along with the Customs Officers forcibly took him to the Green Channel.

5.On 24.9.04 show cause notice was issued demanding duty amounting to Rs.47,72,521 and for confiscation of seized earrings and imposition of penalty. On 30.9.04 proceedings for prosecution of Anil was launched in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.

6.On 18.1.06 Anil applied for compounding the offences in which application he stated that the two pairs of diamond earrings were gifted to him by his friend in United Kingdom on the occasion of marriage; that the invoice stood issued in his name which indicated the value of two pairs of diamond earrings solely for claiming VAT refund at London Airport; and that, Anil was not required to pay any money towards the value of the invoice. In his application Anil stated that his flight landed at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, and since he was tired he entered the Green Channel area due to oversight, though he wanted to make a declaration about the two pairs of diamond earrings and seek clarification regarding the duty liability. This application was made on 18.1.06 on which date Anil simultaneously also moved an application for settlement of his case under Section 127B of the 1962 Act.

7.On receipt of his application for compounding the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the 1962 Act, the Compounding Authority called for a report f