Madras High Court
The Chief Commissioner Of Customs vs Mr.Rajendran Thangam on 12 July, 2016
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.07.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNA KUMAR
W.A.Nos.792 and 793 of 2011
M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011
1. The Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport),
Anna International Airport,
Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
3. The Assistant Commissioner
of Customs (Airport Administration),
O/o. Commissioner of Customs,
New Customs House,
Meenambakkam, Chennai-27. .. Appellants in both W.As.,
versus
Mr.Rajendran Thangam,
Represented by its Power Agent,
A.K.Thanigaivel .. Respondent in W.A.No.792/11
Mr.Kannan Karuppasamy,
Represented by its Power Agent,
K.R.Ramesh .. Respondent in W.A.No.793/11
Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, against the order, made in W.P.Nos.2594 and 2595 of 2011, dated 16.03.2011.
For Appellants : Mr.A.P.Srinivas,
Senior Standing Counsel for CCE & ST
For Respondents : Mr.B.Sathish Sundar
COMMON ORDER
(Common order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Writ Appeals are directed against the orders, made in W.P.Nos.2594 and 2595 of 2011, dated 16.03.2011, by which, this Court has passed the following orders, 12. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 24.12.2010, in so far as it relates to the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-, being the enhanced penalty imposed on one Rahamathullah, for the release of the gold chains and to direct the second and the third respondents to release the goods in question for the purpose of re-exporting the same, without imposing any conditions, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents have not been in a position to show as to how the petitioners would be liable to pay the enhanced penalty imposed on Rahamathullah. Further, there is no finding that the goods in question belongs to Rahamathullah. It is also noted that the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, dated 5.2.2010, had become final. In such circumstances, the petitioner need not be compelled to avail the appellate remedy, available under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Record of proceedings shows that both the Writ Appeals have been admitted on 18.05.2011.
3. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, on instructions, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise Department, submitted that in compliance of the orders in Appeal Nos.C.Cus.167 to 181, dated 05.02.2010, 15 passengers referred therein, including the respondents on the present appeals, have paid re-export fine and personal penalty, imposed on them. He further submitted that confiscated gold jewellery was allowed for re-export on 27.07.2011.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
skm
4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to advert to the merits of the appeals. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of. Right, if any, to the respondents, to seek for refund, is subject to the statutory provisions.
(S.M.K., J.) (D.K.K., J.)
03.06.2016
skm
W.A.Nos.792 and 793 of 2011
M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011