2014 (12) TMI 574 - HC - Customs

Valuation of goods - Demand of redemption fine and penalty on enhanced value of goods - Detention of goods - Rejection of application of early hearing - Held that - The petitioner is rightly aggrieved because his goods have still been detained by the Customs Authorities though the duty as assessed has been paid and the petitioner is willing to pay the penalty and the redemption fine that has been imposed - The CESTAT in effect and substance held that there being no stay, the Department was bound by the orders of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. However, no specific direction was given by the CESTAT for release. The department is still withholding the goods on the contention that the appeal in the CESTAT is pending - writ application is disposed of by directing the CESTAT to dispose of the appeal positively within 30 days from the date of communication of this order having regard to the fact that the goods imported by the petitioner way back in 2008 are still lying detained - Decided in favour of petitioner.

Issues:
1. Assessment of imported goods at a higher value than declared.
2. Imposition of duty, redemption fine, and penalty on the petitioner.
3. Department's appeal against Assessment Order rejected as time-barred.
4. Appeal filed by the department before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
5. Detention of goods by Customs Authorities despite duty payment and willingness to pay penalty and redemption fine.
6. Rejection of Miscellaneous Application for early hearing of appeals by CESTAT.
7. Lack of specific direction by CESTAT for release of goods.
8. Disposal of writ application by directing CESTAT to decide the appeal within 30 days.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner imported "Old & Used Worn Clothing Completely Fumigated" under specific Bills of Entry, with the Assessing Officer enhancing the value from the declared amount, resulting in duty charges on the excess value. Additionally, a redemption fine and penalty were imposed on the petitioner.

2. The petitioner acknowledged paying the assessed duty and expressed willingness to settle the redemption fine and penalty imposed.

3. The department's appeal against the Assessment Order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as time-barred, with the Appellate Authority noting that a review application was not permissible.

4. Subsequently, the department appealed before CESTAT in 2010, seeking a stay which was not decided upon. The petitioner's goods remained detained by Customs Authorities despite duty payment and readiness to pay the imposed penalty and redemption fine.

5. The petitioner's attempt to expedite the appeal process through Miscellaneous Applications before CESTAT was rejected, citing the absence of a stay on the impugned order as reason for dismissal.

6. CESTAT, while acknowledging the absence of a stay, did not issue a specific direction for the release of the goods, leading to continued withholding by the department pending the appeal outcome.

7. Following a hearing involving both parties, the writ application was resolved by instructing CESTAT to conclusively decide on the appeal within 30 days, considering the extended detention of the goods imported by the petitioner since 2008.

8. The order concluded by stipulating the provision of an urgent certified copy to the concerned parties upon request, subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities.

← Previous Next →