9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Tribunal to grant stay in respect of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. 2. Whether there should be a stay of the redemption fine on the facts and circumstances of the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the Tribunal to Grant Stay in Respect of Redemption Fine in Lieu of Confiscation: The Tribunal was faced with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to grant a stay on the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation. The applicant argued for the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee instead of paying the fine in cash. The Departmental Representative opposed this, citing Section 129-E of the Customs Act, which provides for stay only concerning duty and penalty, not redemption fine. The Tribunal considered earlier decisions, including the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Mohammed Kunhi, which established that appellate authorities have incidental and ancillary powers to grant interim reliefs. The Tribunal's majority opinion, however, concluded that while it has the power to grant such reliefs, the specific request to replace cash payment with a bank guarantee did not fall within these powers, as Section 125 of the Customs Act mandates cash payment for redemption fine. 2. Whether There Should Be a Stay of the Redemption Fine on the Facts and Circumstances of the Case: The Tribunal examined whether the applicants should be granted relief from paying the redemption fine pending the appeal. The applicants contended that the goods were not canalised under Appendix 9 of the import policy and that various certificates supported their claim. They argued that paying the fine would cause significant financial hardship and disrupt their business operations. The Departmental Representative countered that the applicants had not demonstrated undue hardship and that the government required cash for its operations, making a bank guarantee insufficient. The Tribunal noted that the balance of convenience and equity did not favor the applicants, as the fine was part of the market value of the goods, and the applicants had not shown that the adjudication order was palpably bad. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that the applicants had not sought a priority hearing for their appeals, which could have expedited the resolution. Conclusion: The Tribunal, by majority opinion, rejected the applications for stay on the redemption fine. It held that while it has the incidental and ancillary power to grant interim reliefs, the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for replacing cash payment with a bank guarantee. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had not pursued a priority hearing for their appeals, which could have resolved the matter more swiftly. The connected appeals were scheduled for a hearing on 14-2-1984.
|
