2020 (8) TMI 183 - HC - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - section 129E of CA - Classification of imported goods - satellite/viewing cards and others parts of set up boxes - classified under CH85235290 or under CH85299090? - HELD THAT - In view of the amendment in the Act, especially Section 129E thereof, there is no question whatsoever of the waiver of pre-deposit. The statute itself has waived 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount, as the case may be, assessed by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner-assessee has to deposit only 7.5% or 10% (as the case may be) of the duty assessed. Thus, there is no question of further waiver of the amount which is required to be deposited under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The amount to be deposited by the petitioner before CESTAT, New Delhi in their statutory appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 comes to ₹ 4.23 Crores for one appeal, which is 0.0705% of the total turnover. Hence, there are no reason to entertain this writ petition looking to the total turnover of the petitioner as well. As the appeals preferred by the petitioner under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 are pending before CESTAT, we are not at all inclined to observe anything on the merits of the case. There are no reason to entertain this writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding mandatory pre-deposit for appeals.
- Applicability of the amended provisions of Section 129E to cases with disputes prior to the amendment.
- Constitutional validity of the provisions of mandatory pre-deposit.
- Assessment of the amount to be deposited by the petitioner for statutory appeals.
- Consideration of the petitioner's annual turnover in determining the deposit amount.
- Dismissal of the writ petition and disposal of pending applications.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 129E: The judgment discusses the statutory provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates a pre-deposit for entertaining appeals. The law requires depositing a fixed percentage of the duty demanded, with specific percentages for different appeal scenarios.

2. Applicability of Amended Provisions: The court refers to previous judgments upholding the constitutional validity of the mandatory pre-deposit provisions. It highlights the amendment brought in by the Finance Act No.2 of 2014, emphasizing the importance of complying with the deposit requirements for appeal entertainments.

3. Assessment of Deposit Amount: The court calculates the deposit amount for the petitioner's statutory appeals based on the turnover and the percentage specified in Section 129E. It determines the required deposit as a proportion of the petitioner's turnover, emphasizing the statutory obligation to make the deposit.

4. Consideration of Annual Turnover: The judgment considers the petitioner's substantial annual turnover in relation to the deposit amount required for the appeals. It notes the proportionality of the deposit to the turnover and concludes that the petitioner's financial capacity aligns with the deposit obligation.

5. Dismissal of Writ Petition: After detailed analysis of the legal provisions, the court dismisses the writ petition. It emphasizes that the statutory appeals should proceed based on their merits and in compliance with the deposit requirements under Section 129E. The court's decision is based on the law, regulations, and evidence presented in the case.

6. Disposal of Pending Applications: The judgment concludes by disposing of all pending applications in line with the dismissal of the writ petition. It ensures that all related matters are appropriately addressed and resolved based on the legal framework and the court's decision.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into the court's interpretation of legal provisions, application of statutory requirements, and considerations of the petitioner's financial circumstances in determining the deposit amount for statutory appeals under the Customs Act, 1962.