9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for modification/Rectification of Mistake of interim order under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The applicants filed applications seeking modification/Rectification of Mistake of the interim order under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The interim stay order dated 17-4-06 directed the applicants to deposit 50% of the penalty imposed failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. Although no pre-deposits were made, the applications were presented before the compliance date, leading to their consideration by the Tribunal. However, the applications were purportedly filed under Section 129B(2), which cannot be invoked for rectification of mistake in interim orders. The Tribunal considered these applications at the request of the Counsel for invoking inherent powers. The main contention of the applicants revolved around paragraph 7 of the stay order. They argued that since the goods were in the custody of the department, no pre-deposit should be required. They contended that even if the property vests in the Central Government under Section 126 of the Customs Act, during the pendency of the appeal, there would be no irreversible vesting of the property. The applicants cited various decisions to support their contentions. On the other hand, the department's representative opposed the application, stating that the goods confiscated vested in the Central Government, and there was no justification for modifying the order requiring a pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the goods confiscated could not be treated as security for penalty under Section 129E of the Act. The provision distinguishes between duty and interest on goods and the penalty levied, allowing for a deposit order to be made for penalties separately. The Tribunal emphasized that the argument of goods being under the control of customs authorities for duty and interest would not apply to penalties levied under the Act. In this case, since only penalties were imposed, the condition of pre-deposit for penalties was justified. The contention of financial hardship was rejected, leading to the rejection of the applications for modification of the stay order. The appeals had been dismissed due to non-compliance with the interim stay order conditions. The applicants were granted liberty to make the pre-deposit and apply for restoration of appeals within two weeks from the pronouncement of the judgment.
|
