MADRAS HIGH COURT (DB)
S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, JJ.
Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Director Mr. Shafeekh - Appellant
Versus
The Additional Director General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 377 of 2016. (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against the order dated 17.11.2014 made in W.P.18833 of 2013)
Decided On : 28-07-2016
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 110-A, 111(d) and 111(1) - Issue a mandamus - Grams seized - Appeal are officers of the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence visited premises of appellants office on connection with certain enquiry made relating to smuggling of Singapore gold jewellery – According to the, based on intelligence seized smuggled 22ct gold jewellery from possession of one had given voluntary statements respectively, confessing that he had smuggled Singapore gold jewellery – Appellant also contended that request to provisionally release the seized goods in terms was not considered, despite appellants assurance that they would cooperate in investigation and therefore, they were constrained to file for a mandamus directing Additional Director General – Held, Court cannot reject objections of revenue – Sub-Section clearly states that any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any provision imposed by any law, for time being in force country are liable to be confiscated – Discretion exercised by authority on both subjective and objective satisfaction, as t goods seized cannot be released when smuggling is alleged and on materials on record discretion exercised by competent authority, to deny provisional release, is in accordance with law – When there is a prima case of smuggling, for which action for confiscation is taken such proceedings taken should be allowed to reach its logical end and not to stiffed, by any provisional release – Appeal Dismissed.
S. Manikumar, J.
Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.18833 of 2013 dated 17.11.2014, by which, the writ court has declined to issue a mandamus to the 1st respondent to release gold weighing 5541.92 Grams seized vide Mahazar dated 23.07.2013.
2. Facts leading to the appeal are that the officers of the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai, visited the premises of the appellant's office on 27.03.2013, in connection with certain enquiry made relating to smuggling of Singapore gold jewellery. According to them, based on intelligence, they seized 28.499 Kgs of smuggled 22ct gold jewellery from the possession of one Mr. R. Mahaveer. He had given voluntary statements dated 19.03.2013 and 25.03.2013 respectively, confessing that he had smuggled Singapore gold jewellery.
3. Case of the appellant is that they used to receive gold jewellery through their sister concern, namely M/s.Focus Jewel Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore and one Mr. Shameem, is the person in-charge of procuring gold jewellery for them.
4. Before the writ court, appellant also contended that the request to provisionally release the seized goods in terms of Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not considered, despite appellant's assurance that they would cooperate in the investigation and therefore, they were constrained to file W.P.No.18833/2013, for a mandamus directing Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai to release gold weighing 5541.92 Grams, seized vide Mahazar dated 27.03.2013.
5. On behalf of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai (1st respondent herein), a counter affidavit has been filed contending inter alia that on specific intelligence, that Mr. R. Mahaveer has smuggled gold jewellery from Singapore, planned to carry the said smuggled gold jewellery weighing about 8 Kgs by Flight No.SG 3241 on 19.03.2013 to Cochin to sell the same and the officers of CUZ-DRI, intercepted at Kamaraj Domestic Terminal of Chennai Airport, along with his son, while they were about to board the said flight. Subsequently, the officers of CZU-DRI, seized 8.452 Kgs of 22ct gold under Mahazar dated 19.03.2013. The Gold Assayer, certified that the said seized 22ct gold jewellery is of foreign origin. During the Mahazar proceedings, Mr. R. Mahaveer, admitted that the said 8.452 Kgs of 22ct gold jewellery is of Singapore origin and that the same was smuggled into India, without payment of customs duty. According to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, gold seized is liable for confiscation, in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, has further stated that Mr. R. Mahaveer, in his voluntary statements dated 19.03.2013 and 25.03.2013 respectively has stated that he had smuggled gold jewellery from Singalpore, with the help of his Burma Bazaar operators, namely Mr. Karuppaswamy, Mr. Ali, Mr.Malar and Mr. Praveen, who had engaged in different carriers, to smuggle gold jewellery from Singapore, in small quantities (50 to 300 gms), through different airports in India; that his Burma Bazar operators would collect his gold jewellery from these carriers and hand over the same to him; that he would pay a commission of Rs.140/- to 150/- per gm, to these Burma Bazaar operators; that his main suppliers in Singapore are, Kin Leon, Simon and Chia of G&J Jewellery. According to the department, Mr.R.Mahaveer has further stated that he had sold these smuggled gold jewellery to various jewellery shops and brokers of different cities, namely M/s.Khazana Jewellery, Chennai, M/s.Saravana Stores, Chennai, M/s.Malabar Jewellery, Chennai, M/s.Saravana Selvarathinam Jewellery, Chennai, M/s.Nathella Sampathu Jewellery, Chennai, M/s.Prince Jewellery, Chennai, Shri Narayan Soni, Kolkata, M/s.S.K.Chain, Kolkatta, Shri Dilip Jain, Cochin etc; that no invoice was raised for the sale of these smuggl
A.N. Roy Commissioner of Police v. Suresh Sham Singh
Balram Kumawat v. Union of India
Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. Union of India
Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P.
Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless G.F. & Co. Ltd.
State of Bihar v. Hira Lal Kejriwal
State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj
State of W.B. v. Union of India
Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspathi
Union of India v. Lexus Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Sheikh Mohd Omer v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta
Southern Springs and wire products v. Collector of Central Excise
Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs
Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.