Delhi High Court - Orders
Sudha Murthy vs Jt Commissioner Of Customs, Igi Airport ... on 9 September, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13131/2022 & CM No.39821/2022
SUDHA MURTHY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Aamir Chaudhary, Mr Aman
Yadav and Mr Prashant Solanki,
Advs.
versus
JT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
IGI AIRPORT T-3 DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Jatin Kumar Gaur, Adv. for Mr
Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel
for Revenue.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 09.09.2022 [Physical Court hearing/ Hybrid hearing (as per request)] CM No.39821/2022
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of dim documents, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 13131/2022
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation to place on record the relevant rules concerning „eligible passenger‟, in the context of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017. 2.1. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to the order-in-original dated 01.01.2021.
2.2. In particular, learnedcounsel for the petitioner has drawn our attentionto the observations made in paragraph 6 of the said order.
W.P.(C) 13131/2022 page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:19.09.2022 16:15:04
3. We may note that what is not in dispute, is that the petitioner was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, upon arrival from Toronto.
3.1. It appears that the petitioner was attempting to pass through the Customs Green Channel when she was intercepted. Upon inspection of her baggage, it was discovered that she was carrying gold jewellery weighing 420 grams.
3.2. The record also shows that the petitioner, at the time of appraisal of the jewellery, which was carried out on 07.10.2020, attempted to steal two [2] gold bangles.
3.3. The criminal prosecution concerning the said offence was launched. Evidently, in these proceedings,the petitioner entered a plea of "guilty" before the concerned Court.
3.4. Accordingly, the sentence meted out to the petitioner was imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.15,000/-.
4. It is the petitioner‟s case that having suffered the sentence, she should have been allowed the option of having the confiscated gold released on payment of redemption fine and penalty.
5. It is, in this context, that the petitioner‟s counsel seeks to rely upon the observations made in paragraph 6 of the order-in-original. 5.1. Counsel for the petitioner states that because she stayed abroad, for nearly eleven months, she was an „eligible passenger‟ and hence, could have imported the subject gold jewellery into the country.
6. It is noticed, though, that the relevant rules and precedents have not been placed on record. Therefore, in view of the request made by learned W.P.(C) 13131/2022 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:19.09.2022 16:15:04 counsel for the petitioner, for placing the relevant rules and precedents on record, list the matter on 09.03.2023.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 aj/r Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 13131/2022 page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:19.09.2022 16:15:04