2017 (8) TMI 811 - HC - Customs

Recovery of Customs Duty - case of petitioner is that the amounts demanded are excessive given that he has deposited the liabilities - Held that - what appellant is in substance seeking is discharge from his entire liabilities without disclosing if and when the amounts were paid, the Court is of the opinion that there is no question of any fallacy in the demands made. The present petition is a glaring abuse of the process of Court - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned demand by Customs Department
2. Justification of recovery in excess of &8377; 87 lacs
3. Imposition of various fines and penalties
4. Payment of personal penalty and its effect on liabilities

Analysis:

Issue 1: Impugned demand by Customs Department
The petitioner challenged the demand issued by the Customs Department, claiming it to be unjustified and not authorized by law. The demand was related to the payment of Customs duty on a specific quantity of copper scrap, along with fines and penalties imposed on the petitioner's proprietorship concern. The petitioner had already appealed to the CESTAT and the High Court, which were both dismissed, and even the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was rejected.

Issue 2: Justification of recovery in excess of &8377; 87 lacs
The petitioner argued that the demanded amounts were excessive, considering that he had already deposited some liabilities. However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide specific details regarding the payment of duties, penalties, and fines. The Court emphasized that the payment of a personal penalty did not absolve the petitioner of all liabilities, especially as the sole proprietor of the concerned business. The Court found the petition lacking in substance and dismissed it.

Issue 3: Imposition of various fines and penalties
The Customs Department had imposed fines, including a redemption fine, penalties under Sections 114A and 28 of the Customs Act, and personal penalties on the petitioner and other individuals. The Court upheld these impositions, emphasizing that the petitioner's attempt to seek discharge from all liabilities without proper disclosure of payment details was an abuse of the court process. The Court found no fallacy in the demands made by the Customs Department.

Issue 4: Payment of personal penalty and its effect on liabilities
The petitioner contended that the payment of a personal penalty should absolve him of all liabilities. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner remained liable for the outstanding amounts, irrespective of the personal penalty paid. The Court deemed the petition an abuse of the court process and ordered the petitioner to deposit costs of the proceeding and file an affidavit confirming the payment within a specified period.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Customs Department's demand, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to provide adequate payment details and dismissing the petition as an abuse of the court process.