9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, should be stayed or not. Analysis: The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered the issue of whether the order passed by the 1st respondent, directing the petitioners to pre-deposit certain amounts towards penalty, should be stayed. The petitioners had appealed against the penalty imposed by the 2nd respondent under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and had filed applications for waiver of the pre-deposit. The court noted that under the Proviso to Section 129(E) of the Customs Act, the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal could dispense with the deposit of duty demand or penalty if it would cause undue hardship to the appellant, subject to certain conditions to safeguard the Revenue's interest. The court observed that the 1st respondent had directed the petitioners to provide financial statements and details of amounts realized from the goods in question, but the petitioners failed to do so. The court also considered the petitioners' prima facie case and found that the goods were liable for confiscation, and the redemption fines/penalties were not excessive. The court concluded that the 1st respondent's order was reasoned and speaking, and it was not appropriate for the court to interfere with the discretionary interlocutory order under Article 226 of the Constitution based on the materials presented. Furthermore, the court addressed the argument made by the learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel regarding further investigation revealing under-valuation and fabrication of documents, strengthening the case in favor of the Revenue. The court also highlighted that the petitioners had obtained orders for release of goods before adjudication proceedings, and penalties were imposed post-adjudication. The court affirmed that the 1st respondent had properly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 129E of the Customs Act, and no interference was warranted. Additionally, the court discussed precedents cited by the petitioners, emphasizing that they did not support their case. The court differentiated the facts of various judgments and concluded that the orders impugned were not perverse, arbitrary, or mala fide. It noted that the 1st respondent had considered all aspects and that the petitioners failed to provide necessary financial information. The court dismissed the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions, extending the time for pre-deposit by two months from the judgment date.
|
