9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 225 - HC - CustomsValidity of Confiscation - benefit of exemption is denied to the assessee - case of appellant is that once the benefit of exemption is denied to the assessee, confiscation under section 111 o of the Customs Act, 1962, could not have been ordered by the learned Tribunal and upheld by the learned Tribunal - HELD THAT - The learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue of section 111 o of the Customs Act, 1962, in the case of the assessee and in the facts of the case, has even determined the redemption of goods applicable to the assessee. The assessee, admittedly, did not satisfy the conditions of the Notification by producing the Installation Certificate before the concerned Authority, nor he has sought extension of period for producing such Installation Certificate. Whether the option for payment of fine or redemption of goods, would be available to the assessee or not, is a question that has already been decided by the learned Tribunal vide the aforesaid portion quoted by us - we do not find any error in the order of the learned Tribunal. However, if there is any factual error in dealing with the facts produced by the assessee/appellant herein with evidence, he is at liberty to file an application before the learned Tribunal seeking appropriate review of the order, impugned herein. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal under section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 against Tribunal's order. 2. Non-production of installation certificate for imported equipment. 3. Confiscation of DSNG equipment under section 111(o) of the Customs Act. 4. Redemption of goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. 5. Quantum of fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. Issue 1: The appeal was filed by Raj Television Network Limited under section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the Tribunal's order dated 07.06.2007. The Tribunal had comprehensively addressed the points raised by the appellant and made observations regarding the non-production of the installation certificate for imported equipment. Issue 2: The case involved the failure to produce the installation certificate within the prescribed period under Notification No.55/2003-Cus. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to confiscate the DSNG equipment under section 111(o) of the Customs Act due to the non-production of the installation certificate, which was a mandatory requirement. Issue 3: While confirming the confiscation of the DSNG equipment, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner overlooked the option for redeeming the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal deemed 15% of the value of the goods as a reasonable fine for redemption, allowing the company to redeem the equipment by paying the specified fine and the duty foregone. Issue 4: Regarding the remaining goods covered by the Bills of Entry, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act but found the quantum of fine imposed by the Commissioner to be harsh. The Tribunal reduced the fine to 15% of the value of the goods and also decreased the penalty imposed on the company. Issue 5: The Tribunal addressed the contention that once the benefit of exemption is denied, confiscation under section 111(o) could not have been ordered. The Tribunal found no error in its order, stating that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of the Notification by failing to produce the Installation Certificate, thereby justifying the confiscation and the option for redemption of goods. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the above observations, allowing the appellant to seek a review if there were any factual errors in the order.
|
