9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for quashing order of Custom Excise & Gold Tribunal, Application under Section 129E of Customs Act for waiver of pre-deposit penalty, Allegations of smuggling mobile phones and computer parts, Imposition of penalty under Section 11B of the Act, Disposal of waiver application by the Tribunal, Jurisdiction of the High Court over the matter, Consideration of hardship in waiver application, Deposit of penalty as a condition for appeal hearing, Tribunal's decision on deposit amount, Hardship caused by deposit requirement, Relief granted by the High Court. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the order of the Custom Excise & Gold Tribunal regarding the waiver of pre-deposit penalty imposed on him in two separate appeals. The allegations against the petitioner involved smuggling mobile phones and computer parts without proper declaration and clearance. The Commissioner of Customs imposed a personal penalty on the petitioner under Section 11B of the Customs Act, leading to appeals and the waiver application under Section 129E. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 in each case, which the petitioner challenged citing lack of consideration of hardship, denial of cross-examination, and violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court considered the jurisdictional aspect, emphasizing that the incident in question occurred at Varanasi Airport, falling under its jurisdiction. The Court delved into the provisions of Section 129E of the Act, highlighting the requirement of deposit for appeal hearing and the Tribunal's discretion to dispense with such deposit based on undue hardship to the appellant. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision on the deposit amount did not adequately consider the petitioner's hardship, especially considering his suspension and subsistence allowance status. Given the petitioner's long service and current suspension, the Court found the deposit requirement of Rs. 25,000 in each case excessive and likely to cause undue hardship. The Court opined that the Tribunal should have considered the petitioner's circumstances and the existence of a prima facie case before directing the deposit. The Court, in the interest of justice, quashed the order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 in each case and instead directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000 in each case for the appeals to be decided on merits after a full hearing. In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing the excessive deposit requirement and providing a revised deposit amount for the appeals to proceed. The Court emphasized the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner's hardship and a thorough hearing of the appeals in accordance with the law.
|
