9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 64/88 for imported medical equipments. 2. Liability for confiscation, penalty, and duty under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellants imported medical equipments under Notification No. 64/88 but failed to meet the prescribed conditions. Proceedings were initiated, leading to a demand for duty, confiscation, and penalty. The appellants did not exercise the option to redeem the goods, leading to a dispute regarding duty liability under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The advocate argued for the disposal of the appeal, citing payment of penalty and lack of interest in redeeming the goods. The Departmental Representative contended that duty liability persists even if redemption is not pursued, referring to legal precedents. Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that duty payment is an integral part of confiscation proceedings. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal clarified that duty liability under Section 125(2) is distinct from Section 28(1) and is triggered upon confiscation. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision where duty payment was deemed mandatory before redeeming goods. Relying on precedents, including Gautam Diagnostic Centre case, the Tribunal concluded that duty liability under Section 125(2) does not arise if the redemption option is not exercised. The Tribunal highlighted that upon confiscation, the property vests with the Central Government, absolving the importer of duty liability if redemption is not pursued. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal, noting that the penalty had been paid, and the redemption option was not exercised. The judgment clarified the duty liability under Section 125(2) in cases of confiscation and emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed conditions for availing exemptions under notifications.
|
