9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 846 - HC - CustomsImposition of redemption fine - section 125 of CA - goods in question have already been released in favour of the assessee on a bond - HELD THAT - the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine. However tribunal has recorded that It is also on record that the goods were not physically available for confiscation. Redemption fine was not to be imposed in lieu of confiscation of any goods where the goods are not physically available to be redeemed. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the cited case of the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of WESTON COMPONENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI 2000 (1) TMI 45 - SC ORDER referred is distinguishable. This observation written by hand by the learned Members of the Tribunal bearing their initials appears to be made without giving any reasons and details. The said observation of the learned Tribunal with great respect is in conflict with the observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components. Decided in favor of revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding imposition of redemption fine when goods are released on a bond. Analysis: The High Court of Madras addressed the issue raised by the Appellant/Revenue regarding the imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that redemption fine cannot be imposed if the goods have already been released to the assessee on a bond. The Appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2000 (1) SCC 565, which clarified that the release of goods on a bond does not preclude the customs authorities from imposing redemption fine if irregularities are subsequently found. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's observation, which set aside the fine on the grounds that goods were not physically available for confiscation, was in conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in Weston Components. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's differentiation of the cited case was erroneous and lacked detailed reasoning. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's observation was unsustainable and needed to be set aside. Despite setting aside the Tribunal's observation, the High Court clarified that this action did not impact the other aspects of relief granted to the Assessee by the Tribunal. The Court proceeded to dispose of the appeal by deleting the conflicting observation made by the Tribunal, aligning it with the Supreme Court's decision in Weston Components Ltd. The appeal was concluded with the removal of the conflicting observation, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
