9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time-barred direction by Collector Appeals under Section 129D(3) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of order of release of goods under concessional rate of duty. 3. Liability of individuals aiding in clearance of goods. 4. Interpretation of bond cancellation and revival. Issue 1: Time-barred direction by Collector Appeals under Section 129D(3) of Customs Act, 1962: The appeal questions the order of the Collector of Customs Appeals, Bombay dated 20.1.1986, which directed the Assistant Collector to apply for determination of certain points regarding the clearance of diesel engines. The Collector Appeals held that the direction was time-barred under Section 129D(3) as the order of release of goods was on 18.7.1984, while the Collector's order was on 5.9.1985. The appellant argued that the order was within one year as required by law, but the facts justified the Collector Appeals' decision. The Collector Appeals' order was upheld as the real grievance arose from the action taken on 18.7.1984, forming viable grounds for an appeal under Section 129D. Issue 2: Validity of order of release of goods under concessional rate of duty: The Collector of Customs ordered the Assistant Collector to apply for determination of the validity of the release of goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 757/783 dated 11.7.1984 under concessional rate of duty. The Collector questioned the conformity of the release with the Import Policy and the availability of concessional duty under Notification No. 179/80. The order highlighted the liability of individuals aiding in the clearance of goods without complying with the notification's terms. The Collector's assertion that the goods were not covered under the notification led to the revival of a bond which, if fulfilled, would render it unenforceable. The Collector's attempt to enforce the bond was deemed futile as it backed the clearance under the exemption. Issue 3: Liability of individuals aiding in clearance of goods: The order raised the issue of penal action against individuals who aided in the clearance of goods against the licenses in disregard of the value limit and concessional rate of duty without producing the necessary certificate. The order sought to determine the liability of these individuals under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order emphasized the importance of compliance with the notification's requirements and the consequences of willful non-compliance. Issue 4: Interpretation of bond cancellation and revival: The judgment discussed the interpretation of bond cancellation and revival in the context of compliance with notification requirements. It highlighted the complexities surrounding the enforcement of a bond that was revived due to non-compliance with the notification's terms. The judgment questioned the enforceability of the bond if the goods were actually used for the declared purpose, rendering the bond redundant in such a scenario. In conclusion, the judgment addressed various legal issues surrounding the clearance of goods under concessional rates, compliance with notification requirements, and the enforcement of bonds in cases of non-compliance. The decision upheld the Collector Appeals' order as the real grievance stemmed from actions taken on specific dates, forming the basis for valid grounds of appeal under Section 129D.
|
