Partly allowed

Union of India v. Md. Aijaj Ahmed and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2009WP/1901/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Tribunal order setting aside confiscation and remitting the matter for redemption. The High Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act since the respondent was acting on behalf of a known owner, thus confirming the Commissioner's confiscation order.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; Commissioner's confiscation order confirmed; Writ Rule made absolute.

Union of India Vs Md. Aijaj Ahmed and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1901 OF 2003

¶6

Union of India .. Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.P.S. Jetly with Mr.Rohit Paredeshi for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.M.R.Baya with Mr. S. Murthy for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : FI. REBELLO AND

¶13

D.G. KARNIK, JJ

¶14

DATED : 23^rd July 2009.

¶15

P.C:-

¶16

The petitioner herein has come against the order of the Tribunal dated 11^th February 2002 whereby the Tribunal in an appeal preferred by the respondent herein who has claimed to be the carrier of the gold on behalf of one Shri Mohammed Karimuddin of Hyderabad, set aside the order of confiscation and remand edthe matter back to the Commissioner for fixing the redemption fine taking the totality of the circumstance.

¶17

¶18

It is not necessary for us to go into very suspects of the matter. Section 125(1) reads as under:-

¶19

125(1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the Officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other laws for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods (or where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized) an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said office thinks fit:

¶20

Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon.

¶21

It would thus be clear that if only the owner is not known, then a person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized could have given an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said Officer thinks fit.

¶22

¶23

In the instant case, according to the respondent himself the owner was Karimuddin as he had acted on behalf of Karimuddin. The question of the Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction u/s.125 of the Customs Act and remit the matter to give an option to the respondent herein to redeem the goods was clearly without jurisdiction.

¶24

In the light of that, the order is set aside and the order of the Commissioner is confirmed.

¶25

Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶26

(D.G. KARNIK, J) (F.I. REBELLO, J)

Union of India v. Md. Aijaj Ahmed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Md. Aijaj Ahmed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.C. Nealsen Org. Marg Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

M/S.Naraindas Dayaram Vs Union of India and Anr.

thecommissione of central excise-thane-i Vs m/s bidhata industries Pvt. Ltd.

S.P. Agarwal Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Pferd Tolls Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai

Manish D. Shah. Vs C.M.Betgeri and Ors.