9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 114A, inconsistency in duty demand, jurisdictional issues, validity of demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, confiscation of goods.
In this case, three stay applications were filed by the applicants seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 2,08,78,750/- and equivalent penalty under Section 114A, along with penalties on the Managing Director and the Executive Director. The applicants, holders of Customs Private Bonded Warehouse Licence, imported a DG set which was transferred to their EOU unit but deposited in an adjacent land due to space constraints. The Department demanded duty as the goods were not deposited in the Warehouse, raising jurisdictional issues. The Counsel argued that since no warehousing certificate was issued, the demand lacked jurisdiction. The Department claimed the transfer bond was closed after a re-warehousing certificate was received, asserting the demand was time-barred. After considering both sides, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the duty demand and agreed that the absence of a warehousing certificate affected the jurisdiction. Given the confiscation of goods and the arguments presented, the Tribunal granted stay unconditionally. The main issue revolved around the inconsistency in the duty demand, with the Department claiming closure of the transfer bond upon receiving a re-warehousing certificate, while the Counsel argued that the absence of a warehousing certificate affected the jurisdiction of the demand. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments raised by the applicants, highlighting the lack of jurisdiction due to the missing warehousing certificate. This jurisdictional issue played a crucial role in the decision to grant stay applications. Another significant issue was the validity of the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Counsel contended that the demand under Section 28 was time-barred, referencing a letter indicating the closure of the transfer bond after receiving a re-warehousing certificate. The Tribunal considered this argument, along with the Department's confiscation of goods valued at over 5 crores, in deciding to grant the stay applications. The validity of the demand under Section 28 and its timing in relation to the issuance of the re-warehousing certificate influenced the Tribunal's decision in favor of the applicants. Furthermore, the confiscation of goods valued at a substantial amount played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to grant the stay applications unconditionally. The Tribunal took into account the value of the confiscated goods, along with the jurisdictional issues and inconsistencies in the duty demand, in determining that this case warranted the granting of the stay applications. The confiscation of goods added weight to the arguments presented by the applicants and contributed to the final decision to allow the stay applications.
|
