2016 (7) TMI 792 - CGOVT - Customs

Import of baggage without declaring the goods - passing through green channel - carrying goods on behalf of others - waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - Government finds nothing on record to show that the said stay order of Commissioner (Appeals) for depositing an amount of ₹ 15000/- towards the penalty amount has been challenged before any forum and has thus attained finality and needs to be complied with. The applicant failed to comply with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 129E. As the applicant admittedly failed to comply with these directions which were in the nature of precondition for hearing the case on merits, Government holds that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the applicant s appeal.

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d), (j), and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Allegations of bias and improper valuation by the adjudicating authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Goods:
The applicant, Shri Jaswinder Singh, was intercepted at Kolkata Airport with assorted garments, mobile phones, and other electronic items valued at ?7,70,459/-. Since neither the applicant nor the accompanying passengers could produce licit documents for the lawful acquisition and importation of these goods, the items were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of these goods under Section 111(d), (j), and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem them upon payment of a redemption fine of ?50,000/-.

2. Imposition of Personal Penalty:
A personal penalty of ?15,000/- was imposed on the applicant under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. This penalty was due to the applicant's involvement in the attempted unlawful importation of goods for commercial benefit.

3. Non-compliance with Pre-deposit Conditions:
The applicant filed an appeal along with a stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The stay was granted subject to the deposit of ?15,000/- on or before 19.09.2013 under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant failed to comply with this condition, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirements. The Government upheld this decision, emphasizing that the requirement to deposit the penalty or duty demanded is a precondition for hearing the appeal on its merits unless specifically waived by the appellate authority.

4. Allegations of Bias and Improper Valuation:
The applicant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) exhibited bias and failed to ensure justice by not considering the undue hardship faced by the applicant in arranging the pre-deposit amount. Additionally, the applicant argued that the adjudicating authority did not revalue the seized baggage properly and relied on arbitrary valuation methods. However, the Government found no substance in these allegations, noting that the applicant did not challenge the stay order requiring the pre-deposit before any forum, and thus, it attained finality. The Government also dismissed the relevance of the cited case law, stating it did not apply to the present case.

Conclusion:
The Government concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appeal for non-compliance with the conditions of stay granted under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The order-in-appeal was upheld, and the revision application was rejected without delving into the merits of the case.

← Previous Next →