Single-paragraph order in a customs application. The court notes the Tribunal set aside confiscation and identified two substantial questions of law regarding ownership determination and redemption fine remand. The application stands disposed of without further direction.
The Customs Application stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON
CUSTOMS APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2003
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) .. Applicant.
Versus
Shri Sadaiya Padarachi Sivakolundu
Vagaiyar .. Respondents.
Mr.P.S. Jetly for the Applicant.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents, though served.
2. We have perused the order of the Tribunal
dated 17th September, 2002. The Tribunal has set
aside the order of confiscation. It is seen that
the ownership of the seized goods was neither
established nor the goods were seized from any one’s
possession, as the same were unaccompanied. In view
thereof, the Tribunal is directed to send the
statement of case with regard to following two
substantial questions of law.
1. Whether from the facts and
circumstances of the case the CEGAT was
justified in holding that the Respondent was
the owner of the goods on the basis of
retracted Statement ?
2
2. Whether CEGAT was justified in
remanding the case back to the Adjudicating
Authority for determining the redemption
fine ignoring the fact that goods were
seized as unaccompanied baggage ?
3. The Customs Application stands disposed of.
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether CEGAT was justified in holding the respondent as owner of unaccompanied goods based on a retracted statement.
Whether CEGAT was justified in remanding the case for redemption fine determination ignoring that goods were unaccompanied baggage.
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Shri Sadaiya Padarachi Sivakolundu Vagaiyar
DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
J.P. DEVADHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court