Suppainah Thiruselvam vs Additional Commissioner Of ...
2020 Latest Caselaw 1401 Del

$~31
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Date of decision: 2nd March, 2020

+      W.P.(C) 2391/2020
       SUPPAINAH THIRUSELVAM                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. K.K.S. Singh and Mr. Rahul
                             Kumar Singh, Advs.

                          versus

       ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IGI AIRPORAT
       AND ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
                             Counsel with Mr. GaganVaswani,
                             Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

                          ORDER

       %                  02.03.2020

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 2391/2020

1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 30 th August, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as the petitioner had not made pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty imposed on the petitioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31st July, 2018, along with the appeal as per Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that 996 grams gold (125

coins) was recovered from the possession of the petitioner at Indira Gandhi International Airport. The said gold was seized on 23rd March, 2018 and thereafter complete confiscation order was passed i.e., Order-in-Original dated 31st July 2018 (Annexure P-3 to the memo of this writ petition).

3. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid complete confiscation Order-in-Original, dated 31st July, 2018, and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. As per amended provision of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner was required to make a pre-deposit @ 7.5% of the penalty amount i.e. Rs.5 lacs, which has not been deposited by the petitioner. Hence, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 30th August, 2019 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 31st July, 2018 has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Nonetheless, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is ready to make a pre-deposit @ 7.5% of the penalty amount i.e. Rs. 5 lacs within a period of two days and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) may be directed to hear the petitioner's appeal on its own merits.

6. In view of this limited submissions and also looking to the fact, petitioner is ready and willing to make pre-deposit @ 7.5% of the penalty amount i.e. Rs.5 lacs within a period of two days, we hereby allow this writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30th August, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Petitioner is directed to

deposit the penalty amount @ 7.5% of the penalty amount i.e. Rs.5 lacs within a period of one week from today, which will be accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appeal preferred by the petitioner is revived with its original number. If the pre-deposit is not made by the petitioner within a period of one week, nothing is required to be decided afresh by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the aforesaid appeal.

7. With aforesaid directions, this writ petition is hereby disposed of. CM No. 8348/2020

1. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application is disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.

CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J MARCH 02, 2020 r.bararia