- (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) Reasons for staying the impugned judgment: (a) Case of the Department The Intelligence was collected that one Shri Sangit Aggarwal and his relatives/associates were indulging in fraudulent import of PVC cloth under Tariff Heading 59.03 by way of misdeclaration of its value and description. The intelligence suggested that Shri Sangit Aggarwal used to visit China regularly. He used to place orders for import of PVC cloth with M/s Yantai, China. He used to instruct M/s Yantai to issue invoice of actual price and value of M/s Texpo, Hong Kong. Thereafter, M/s Texpo used to issue lesser value invoices in the name of the company owned and controlled by Shri Sangit Aggarwal. The differential amount on which customs duty stood evaded was allegedly remitted to M/s Yantai, China through hawala operators in Dubai. Consequently, offices of Shri Sangit Aggarwal, who was the proprietor of the respondent Firm, were searched at Delhi, Haridwar, Lucknow, Mumbai, Kolkata and Ahmedabad. His residential house was also searched. From his residential house, Rs 23.90 lakhs were recovered. His wife informed the officers of DRI that Rs 23.90 lakhs constituted sale proceeds of imported goods. The said amount of Rs 23.90 lakhs in case came to be seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that the said currency was liable for confiscation as it represented the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. (b) Case of the importer Shri Sangit Aggarwal thereafter moved the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 5677 of 2007 inter alia seeking a direction of the Department to release Rs 23.90 lakhs seized from his premises on 10-1-2007. In the writ petition, it was submitted that the said amount of Rs 23.90 lakhs represented the sale proceeds of the imported goods under the bill of entry dated 22-12-2006 which goods were cleared on payment of duty after assessment and therefore Section 121 of the Customs Act (which deals with confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods) was not applicable. Issue:
(3.) The main point which arises for determination in this civil appeal is: whether misdeclaration of description and value in the facts and circumstances of this case constituted "smuggling" as defined in Section 2(39) of the Customs Act.;