2011 (4) TMI 533 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - waiver of pre-deposit - Notification No. 63/88-Cus - Confiscation - One of the conditions was that the hospital should produce a certificate from DGHS to the effect that the hospital fell in either of the categories specified in the table annexed to the Notification - Prima facie therefore the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of the above Notification and hence liable to pay the amount of duty quantified by the Commissioner - it appears the duty on the goods is also liable to be paid by the importer in the context of redeeming the goods - Appeal is allowed by way of direction to pre-deposit the redemption fine alongwith an amount of Rs. Five lakhs towards duty under Section 129-E of the Customs Act within a period of four weeks and report compliance on 3-6-2011

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Customs Notification No. 63/88-Cus.
3. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to the dues adjudged.
4. Financial hardships claimed by the appellant.
5. Duty demand and redemption fine.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of nine days, which was satisfactorily explained in the 'Condonation of Delay' Application. The delay was condoned after hearing both sides.

Eligibility for Benefit under Customs Notification No. 63/88-Cus:
The Commissioner, in remanded proceedings, found the appellant not eligible for the benefit of Customs Notification No. 63/88-Cus, demanding duty in the context of confiscating goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the original order regarding redemption fine and penalty, with the appellant seeking waiver of pre-deposit for duty and redemption fine.

Financial Hardships Claimed by the Appellant:
The appellant claimed financial hardships, citing the use of medical equipment for charitable purposes in a hospital run by Pune Municipal Corporation. The appellant submitted financial documents indicating excess expenditure over income, seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Duty Demand and Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal found no prima facie case against the duty demand, upholding the Commissioner's decision on the eligibility for the benefit under Notification No. 63/88-Cus. The appellant, not running a hospital providing medical treatment, was deemed ineligible for the notification's benefit. Despite the plea of financial hardships, the Tribunal considered the appellant's financial status, directing pre-deposit of the redemption fine and a specified amount towards duty within a set period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed various issues, including the delay in filing the appeal, the eligibility for Customs Notification benefits, financial hardships claimed by the appellant, and the duty demand with redemption fine. The decision was based on legal provisions and factual circumstances, ultimately directing the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount while upholding the Commissioner's decision regarding duty payment.