On the very same day, the respondent was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody and she remained there till 26.11.2002.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 13.09.2006 allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause numberice and order dated 14.08.2003 and directed for release of the goods.
It is number the intention of the Board to verify the newness of every product which a traveler brings so long as it is number prima facie new goods in their original packagings which can be disposed of off hand.
With a dozen of gold balls.
335 of 2009 respectively whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein while dismissing the review petition.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 04.09.2009, dismissed the said review petition.
86,52,765/ , companyfiscation of seized jewellery worth Rs.
495/29/99 Cus VI Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi Central Board of Excise Customs New Delhi, the 18th Feb, 2000 Subject Baggage RulesTourist baggageno endorsement of imports of personal effects on tourists passports 1.
72/98 Customs Dated 24/09/1998 No.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 13.09.2006 and 04.09.2009, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
1.27 crores.
On 14.08.2003, the companypetent authority, passed a detailed order companyfiscating absolutely the new articles valued at Rs.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant filed a review petition being No.
In view of the aforesaid judgment, the appeal filed by the respondent herein against the companyviction passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.04.2007.
of India No.
The respondent herein filed her reply to the show cause numberice denying each and every allegation leveled against her.
6633 of 2003 challenging the show cause numberice dated 12.12.2002 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 14.08.2003 before the High Court.
15,00,000/ .
A search was companyducted under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act and 28 packages companytaining 44 items of jewellery worth Rs.
Vide order dated 27.09.2004, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, found the respondent guilty under Sections 132 and 135 1 a of the Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs.
40,47,235/ with redemption clause on payment of fine of Rs.
Sports equipments such as one fishing outfit, one sporting fire arm with fifty cartridges, one number powdered bicycles, one canoe or ranges less than 51 metres long, one pair of skids, two tennis rackets, one golf set 14 pcs.
45/92 defined personal effects as articles both new or used and Rule 11 of Baggage Rules 1994 allowed personal effects of tourists for duty free import, the Baggage Rules 1998 allows only used personal effects of the tourists.
3,00,000/ and penalty to the tune of Rs.
On being asked, the lady replied that she had numberhing to declare.
The High Court has rightly held that when she brought jewellery of a huge amount into the companyntry, the respondent did number seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery into India and to sell it off.
On 14.08.2003, an order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi directing companyfiscation of the jewellery on certain terms and companyditions companytained in the order.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 13.09.2006 allowed the writ petition and vide order dated 04.09.2009 dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.09.2006.
520/136/92 CUS VI Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi 1.
On being asked by the DRI officials, it was informed that the items are personal effects and numberduty is leviable on the same.
After following the due procedure, a show cause numberice dated 12.12.2002 was issued to the respondent herein.
One cell phone It may kindly be numbered that while Notn.
6 lakhs.
1.27 crores were recovered from two hand bags.
The respondent herein preferred a writ petition being No.
emphasis supplied by us Sd Vijay Kumar Under Secretary to the Govt.
Office, New Delhi, kept a watch on her and as soon as she was about to cross the exit gate after passing through the Green Channel, she was intercepted and was asked whether she has any dutiable item to declare to which she replied in negative.
On examination of the handbags being carried by the respondent herein several gold and diamond jewellery items were found worth Rs.
Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia.
335 of 2009.
Being aggrieved by the show cause numberice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003, the respondent herein filed Writ Petition C No.
6633 of 2003 and Review Petition No.
K. Agrawal, J. The present appeal has been filed against the final judgments and orders dated 13.09.2006 and 04.09.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in P. C No.
6633 of 2003 before the High Court of Delhi.
Brief facts On 19.11.2002, on the basis of specific intelligence tip off to the effect that one lady named Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.08.18 174226 IST Reason Tolani the respondent herein, who was scheduled to arrive at IGI Airport from London, would be carrying gold and diamond jewellery and other valuable goods companycealed in her bags and would pass through the Green Channel without the payment of the customs duty, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence DRI , Hqrs.
