9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (6) TMI 112 - HC - CustomsPenalty imposed on petitioner firm-a stevedore for the charges that the petitioner removed empty container without the permission of the customs authorities - case of the petitioner is that he sought oral permission from the authorities before moving the empty container, it is stated that it is the common practice in the business is to seek only oral permission, since the containers were in the custody of the customs officials and it is not possible to remove the containers without permission of the customs authorities - Considering the age of the partner of the petitioner firm, who is about 70 years old, penalty is reduced
Issues:
Appeal against customs penalty for removing empty container without permission, appeal dismissed on grounds of limitation, challenge to the dismissal in writ petition, argument for oral permission granted by customs authorities, request to reduce penalty amount due to age of petitioner. Analysis: The petitioner, a stevedore for two companies, was penalized for removing an empty container without customs permission. Despite filing an appeal after the stipulated period, it was dismissed as time-barred. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, which also upheld the penalty. The petitioner contended that oral permission was obtained due to the nature of the business, as written orders are impractical for containers in customs custody. The petitioner, a father-son firm with the father aged 70, argued for leniency due to age and compliance with interim payment orders. The Court acknowledged the common practice of seeking oral permission for container removal from customs custody. Considering the circumstances, including the petitioner's age and the unusual nature of the case, the Court reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000. The petitioner had already paid Rs. 20,000 as directed by the Court in interim orders. The Court partially allowed the writ petition without imposing costs, emphasizing that the decision was based on the specific case and should not serve as a precedent.
|
