9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 regarding the fixation of compounding amount under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, specifically focusing on the fixation of the compounding amount under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner applied for compounding of an offence and the Compounding Authority imposed a compounding amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioner contended that the compounding amount imposed was unreasonable, arguing that the word 'upto' in the rule should qualify both "twenty percent of the market value of the goods" and "Rupees ten lakhs," giving the authority discretion to fix the amount up to 20% of the market value or up to Rs. 10 lakhs, whichever is higher. The court analyzed the rule and disagreed with the petitioner's interpretation. The court held that if the word 'upto' were to qualify both alternatives mentioned in the rule, it would render the provision nonsensical. Additionally, the court emphasized that the words "whichever is higher" must be given due consideration. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the compounding amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as fixed by the Compounding Authority. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that the petitioner had previously filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Chief Commissioner's order, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court granting leave to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The Supreme Court directed that if the petitioner failed to move the appropriate forum within two weeks, the time to deposit the amount would lapse. As the petitioner approached the High Court within the specified period, the court granted the petitioner one week's time to make the deposit, if chosen, in the interest of justice. The petition was ultimately dismissed.
|
