Sangita Sajjan Jindal vs Union of India and Others

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 2nd January, 2014.

The Government of India was dealing with Revision Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order in appeal dated 12th December, 2012, of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai -III and the order in original dated 21st April, 2011, of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. Mr. Shroff, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of this Writ Petition would submit that the petitioner is a very respected Indian citizen and engaged in enormous charitable work throughout the World. She is also a Trustee of the World Monument Fund. During the course of some events abroad, she travelled from Mumbai and on her return finding that she was tired, but permitted by Protocol practices to leave the Airport terminal, she left it. However, she authorised two company officials deputed on Protocol duty and who attended the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport to receive her to get the baggages cleared. These officials have specifically stated in their statements that they did not opt for the Green Channel, but one Badal Kumar, the officer and in the employment of the Customs, directed them towards this channel. There is, therefore, a clear contradiction in the impugned orders. The findings are contradictory and inconsistent. Our attention was invited to the statements of the two officials and copies of the same are at pages 98 and 101 of the paper-book. These statements reveal as to how the officials were directed by one Badal Kumar to the screening. The officials were not aware of the contents in the baggages. In the circumstances and when the allegations in the show-cause notice are also consistent, the finding at page 283 of the paper-book are clearly perverse. They also ignore the valuation report. It is the Department which obtained opinions of two experts / valuers and copies of the same are at pages 44 and 63 of the paper-book. In the circumstances, imposition of penalty following the confiscation of goods and in the sum directed is vitiated by perversity. The approach of the Government in matters of this nature and where the petitioner''s officers or the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged breaches or violations exhibits complete non-application of mind to the vital materials. The petitioner was never intending to take advantage and of her position in Protocol. She returned immediately back to the Airport and on the same day in order to clarify the matter. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the slur and stigma on the petitioner should be removed.

Mr. Jetly appearing on behalf of the Revenue on the other hand would submit that the consistent findings and in the concurrent orders are that it is the petitioner who was responsible. She did not bother to adhere to the rules and regulations. She has left the necessary documents / column in the declaratory slips blank. Her admissions, therefore, enabled the authorities to take the action. It is not necessary for any officer to guide the passengers as the passengers themselves are aware of the contents of the baggages. It is for the passengers to determine upon embarkation as to how the Customs procedures have to be complied with. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. There is no perversity in the impugned orders.

With the assistance of Mr. Shroff and Mr. Jetly we have perused the concurrent orders. The Government while dealing with the petitioner''s revision application found that the petitioner-passenger arrived at CSI Airport, Mumbai, on 18th October, 2010. On arrival, she handed over her passport and disembarkation slip to one Kirit Sodha and Raymond Vakulkar, officials of the company JSW Steel Limited. They were orally directed to complete Customs formalities. The petitioner then left the baggage hall. Both officers opted, according to the impugned orders, for Green Channel where they were diverted by Customs officers for screening of the baggage and further examination. We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Shroff simply because the channel was opted by these officers knowing fully well that the petitioner had arrived from abroad, that the petitioner alone would be able to make the appropriate declaration and that the contents of the baggage were known to her and none else. When they reached the channel, they were told by the official concerned and in the Department of Customs to get the baggage screened for further examination. It is thereupon the scrutiny commenced and after the passport and disembarkation slips were perused it revealed that the petitioner was returning after three days'' stay abroad. There was no declaration of value of the goods carried by the passenger. It is in these circumstances the goods were examined and it revealed gold jewellery, ladies purse, silver cutlery and miscellaneous goods covered by Annexures A to C of the Panchanama. The valuation was then an exercise carried out and we do not think that the officer concerned and who adjudicated the matter was unaware or was in error in not referring to the statements of the two company officials. He has made reference to the same as also that of the petitioner herself. The petitioner herself owned up and accepted all mistakes, including of non-filling up the relevant column in the slips or declaration. She stated on the other hand that the gold jewellery is old and used. It has been taken out on the strength of export certificate at the time of departure and was re-imported back and that purses and other articles are brought for her daughter''s wedding as gifts. The statements of the petitioner and as recorded are referred to in extenso at page 283 of the paper-book. Therefore, we do not find that the order suffers from any perversity. We do not attach any importance and weightage to what the officials and of the company stated. Surely if the petitioner''s Protocol enabled her to leave the terminal before even the baggage was cleared and she could rely upon her company officials to clear the goods, then, she cannot turn around and blame the Department of Customs and other officials for having scrutinized and verified the baggage and documents. If the documents revealed certain discrepancies and which are accepted by her, then, it is not for us to substitute our opinion with that of the authorities and concurrently rendered. There is thus no substance in the first argument that the impugned order is perverse.

We do not find any merit in the second argument. The authorities have been careful in obtaining opinions and before the valuation was finalised. The impugned orders and particularly the revisional order reveals that the petitioner had argued that she has not violated section 77 of the Customs Act as she handed over her baggages, passport and blank customs declaration form duly signed along with keys to her proxies and that they collected her baggages and reported to the Batch Officer. It is they who acted on his directions and walked through the Green Channel. The records revealed otherwise and after the baggages were subjected to detailed examination resulting in gold jewellery recovery valued at Rs. 38,99,000/- imported ladies purses and goods valued at Rs. 9,16,634/- and silver items valued at Rs. 12,01,634/-, then the petitioner cannot complain. She did not in her documents declare the value of the goods imported by her. The company officials also could not declare the same to the Customs and in terms of the procedures. Handing over blank documents compounded the matter further. Therefore, while determining the quantum of penalty, the concurrent orders take into account the valuation of the materials. The penalty is not on the higher side at all. In fact, the argument of the petitioner that the fine be reduced and equally the personal penalty has been noted. With regard to her position and being a responsible citizen of India, knowing fully well the procedures which have to be followed and complied with while travelling abroad in addition being a frequent traveller, it was expected of the petitioner not to have acted in the manner done. In the circumstances, we do not find that the imposition of penalty visits her with any stigma or casts a slur as complained. The quantum of penalty is also not something which is seriously disputed.

In the circumstances we do not think that the order suffers from any error of law apparent on the face of record or is perverse warranting our interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.