9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Authority of Commissioner of Customs in proceedings. 2. Confirmation of duty and penalty against multiple persons. 3. Allegations of smuggling pharmaceutical chemicals. 4. Request for waiver of pre-deposit. 5. Consideration for waiver of duty and penalty. Authority of Commissioner of Customs in proceedings: The counsel argued that the Commissioner of Customs lacked the authority to proceed due to the initiation of the investigation by DRT in Mumbai and the goods being imported through Mumbai Port. The absence of a notification authorizing the Commissioner of Chennai was highlighted. The defense contended that the case was primarily built on statements from a third party and that the seized goods did not match the imported items. Reference was made to a previous case where the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit. However, the Respondent submitted that the Commissioner had jurisdiction as the seized goods fell under the Chennai Commissionerate and involved smuggling. The Respondent emphasized the incriminating nature of the collected evidence and statements. Confirmation of duty and penalty against multiple persons: The duty amount and penalties were confirmed against three individuals without specifying the individual amounts each appellant had to pay. The defense sought a waiver, asserting the innocence of the appellants and discrepancies in the case. The Respondent argued for the confirmation of duties and penalties, citing substantial evidence indicating smuggling activities. The defense offered to pre-deposit specific amounts towards penalties for each person, leading to a decision by the Tribunal to grant a waiver of the duty amount. Specific penalty amounts were directed to be deposited by the appellants within a stipulated period, failing which their appeals would be at risk of dismissal. Allegations of smuggling pharmaceutical chemicals: The appellants were accused of assisting in smuggling pharmaceutical chemicals, specifically gentamycin sulphate and loperamide, disguised as lactose. The seized goods were found to be different from the imported items, leading to a dispute regarding the alleged smuggling activities. The defense contested the allegations based on the source of the investigation and the nature of the seized goods, while the Respondent emphasized the incriminating statements and evidence collected. Request for waiver of pre-deposit: The defense requested a waiver of pre-deposit, citing innocence and inconsistencies in the case. Reference was made to a previous case where a waiver was granted by the Tribunal. The Respondent opposed the waiver, highlighting the substantial evidence collected and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in dealing with smuggling cases. The Tribunal considered the arguments and decided to grant a waiver of the duty amount while directing specific penalty deposits by the appellants within a specified timeframe. Consideration for waiver of duty and penalty: After careful consideration, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiving the duty amount. The defense offered to pre-deposit specific amounts towards penalties for each individual. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit the specified penalty amounts within a given timeframe, failing which their appeals would face dismissal. Compliance was scheduled for a future date to monitor the deposit of the required amounts.
|
