9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 249 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty under Section 112A - valuation of goods i.e. Brass/Zinc hardware imported by the appellant from China - appellant submitted that in Tanya Industries 2013 (11) TMI 246 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , absolute stay was granted- Held that - this appellant was not before Tribunal in the case cited by the appellant. Facts and circumstances of each case decide the order thereon. Further, every Court has its own discretion in passing order at the interim stage. Even that Court has power to vary or vacate its order. - Decision in the case of Empire Industries vs. UOI, 1985 (5) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - stay granted partly
Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 112A of Customs Act, 1962 by appellate authority, valuation of imported goods, evasion of custom duty, undervaluation, tariff value of goods, redemption fine, mis-declaration, statutory support of notification, requirement of pre-deposit, discretion of the court in passing interim orders, compliance with court directives, importance of interim orders, consequences of failure to make deposit.
The judgment addressed the issue of imposition of penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 by the appellate authority. The learned counsel argued against the imposition of the penalty, citing a show cause notice proposing the levy of the penalty. The Adjudicating Authority had examined the issue of undervaluation of Brass/Zinc hardware imported from China, leading to the revelation of evasion of custom duty. The Adjudicating Authority opined on the valuation of goods and proposed a demand of Rs. 43,81,577. The Appellate Authority upheld the enhancement of declared value based on the tariff value of Brass scrap under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not impose a redemption fine due to the unavailability of goods for seizure. The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a penalty of Rs. 27 lakhs upon finding mis-declaration supported by statutory notification. Regarding the requirement of pre-deposit, the appellant cited a case where absolute stay was granted without the need for pre-deposit. The Tribunal clarified that each case's facts and circumstances determine the order, and every court has discretion in passing interim orders. Citing the Apex Court decision in Empire Industries vs. UOI, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 6 weeks to avoid prejudice to Revenue. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of both appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of interim orders, referencing judgments such as Dunlop India & Ors and Benara Valves Ltd. to support its decision. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the imposition of penalties, valuation of imported goods, compliance with court directives, and the consequences of failure to make the required deposit. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, highlighting the importance of statutory provisions and legal precedents in reaching a fair and just outcome.
|
