2017 (6) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Closure of deposit on payment of differential customs duty along with 25% of penalty - Section 28(5) of the CA, 1962 - Original Authority proceeded to adjudicate the case and did not close the proceedings stating that the seized goods were liable for confiscation and as such, the case cannot be closed - Held that - the respondents have right to close the matter without further adjudication - It is a well settled legal position that all proceedings arising out of the same matter shall stand closed upon fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein - reliance placed in the case of M/s Mona Steels Versus CC, Amritsar 2017 (3) TMI 540 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where on similar issue, it was held that closure of proceedings in terms of Section 28 is correct - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Improper valuation of imported goods, differential duty demand, penalties, confiscation of seized goods, closure of proceedings under Section 28(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved proceedings initiated against the respondent for improper valuation of imported goods, leading to a show cause notice demanding differential duty and penalties, along with potential confiscation of seized goods. The respondent had already deposited the differential duty amount before the notice and paid 25% of the penalty within the stipulated time. During adjudication, they requested closure of proceedings under Section 28(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Original Authority proceeded with the case, citing the seized goods' liability for confiscation as a reason not to close the proceedings.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the show cause notice invoked non-existing provisions but directed the Original Authority to verify the facts and close the matter based on the respondent's request for closure upon payment of duty and penalty. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the closure under Section 28(5) was not valid as the penalty could only arise post-adjudication, and the deposit made during investigation should be solely for differential duty, not penalty.

The Tribunal analyzed Section 28(5) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the respondent had paid the differential duty and 25% of the penalty within the specified timeframes. As per the legal provisions, the respondent had the right to close the matter without further adjudication upon meeting these requirements. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision supporting closure under Section 28, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that all proceedings related to the matter should be closed upon fulfilling the conditions outlined in the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, emphasizing the respondent's compliance with the legal provisions for closure under Section 28(5) and the settled legal position that proceedings should be closed upon meeting the specified conditions. The appeal by the Revenue was deemed meritless and subsequently dismissed.