Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2006 Latest Caselaw 1624 Del

ORDER

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28th July, 2006 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat Zone, Ahmedabad in Order No. 01/CO/2006.

2. The Petitioner had applied for compounding of an offence committed by him under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. After considering the application filed by the Petitioner, the W.P.(C) 14639/2006 Page 1 of 4 Compounding Authority allowed the application and imposed a compounding amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.

3. According to the Petitioner, the compounding amount imposed is unreasonable.

4. Rule 5 of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows-

Fixation of the Compounding Amount. - For the purpose of compounding of offences under the various provisions of the Act, the compounding amount shall be as provided hereinbelow:

(1) - (3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) Offence specified under up to twenty percent of Section 135(1 )(a) of the market value of the goods Act. or Rupees ten lakhs whichever is higher.

(5) - (7) xxx xxx xxx,

On this basis, the compounding amount has been fixed at Rs. 10 lakhs

5. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the word 'up to' appearing in the above provision must be read as to qualify both "twenty percent of market value of the goods" as well as "Rupees ten lakhs". In other words, according to him the compounding authority has a discretion to fix the compounding amount up to 20% of the market value or up to Rs. 10 lakhs, whichever is higher.

6. On a plain reading of the rule, we are not in agreement with learned Counsel for the Petitioner. If the word 'up to' is read so as to qualify both the alternatives mentioned in the above rule, it will be impossible to make any sense of the provision. Moreover, the words "whichever is higher" cannot be washed away.

7. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. The Petitioner had earlier filed an SLP against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner and that was disposed of on 4th September, 2006 by the Supreme Court granting leave to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The Supreme Court directed that if the Petitioner does not move the appropriate forum within two weeks then the time to deposit the amount shall lapse after two weeks. Since the Petitioner has approached this Court within the period of two weeks given by the Supreme Court, we think it will be in the interest of justice to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner to grant him one week's time to make the deposit, if he so choses. Dismissed. Dassti.