9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of proceedings and penalty imposed by Collector of Customs. 1. Whether rejection of appeals without exercising discretion under Section 129 of the Customs Act was illegal? 2. Whether imposition of penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act was unauthorized? Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner contended that the rejection of appeals without fully dispensing with the deposit of penalty was illegal. Section 129 of the Customs Act mandates depositing the duty demanded or penalty levied, with provision for the appellate authority to waive the deposit in cases of hardship. The appellate authority reduced the deposit amount from Rs. 3,23,800 to Rs. 1,50,000, exercising discretion as per the law. The High Court held that the authority properly exercised its discretion under Section 129, and it was not required to entirely dispense with the deposit. The petitioner failed to avail himself of the concession offered, leading to the dismissal of appeals. Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the penalty imposed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act was unauthorized as the proceedings commenced under the repealed Act. However, the High Court invoked Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows continuation of legal proceedings despite the repeal of an enactment. As the penalty provisions differed between the old and new Acts, the proceedings initiated under the old Act were deemed legal. Additionally, the petitioner had benefited from a lesser penalty and due process under the new Act. The High Court declined to interfere based on the lack of prejudice to the petitioner and highlighted the petitioner's unexplained delay in approaching the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
