9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.A. 160/2016 & Crl.M.A. 2662/2016 (stay) - - - Dated:- 29-11-2017 - MS. MUKTA GUPTA J. Appellant Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Mr. Divakar Kumar, Advs. Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Kunal Dutt, Adv. MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Appellant imported certain equipments from its parent company having its office at California, USA and applied to the Reserve Bank of India for release of foreign exchange for remittances against the imports. It is the case of the appellant that the documents of title to the imported goods were routed through Citi Bank and upon receipt of the goods at the Indian Port the appellant filed the Bills of Entry with the Customs Authorities for clearance of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o produce the original Bills of Entry for the imports made. 3. It is the case of the appellant that on utter non-application of mind respondent issued a memorandum dated 31st May, 2002 holding against the appellant in respect of 12 remittances for which the Bills of Entry had allegedly not been filed. The appellant vide its letter dated 2nd July, 2002, 31st July, 2002 and 31st October, 2002 sought further time to furnish the copies of 12 Bills of Entries as Citi Bank was not cooperating. The appellant filed with the respondent the certificate given by the Citi Bank with respect to the remittances made against the 12 Bills of Entries issued against the supporting documents. It also filed a list of Bills of Entries that had been submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to notice the negative net worth of appellant of more than ₹ 350 million. 6. Thus, the limited issue in this appeal is whether the impugned order dated 12th November, 2015 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal deciding the application for dispensation and directing appellant to deposit 10% of the penalty amount and to furnish a credible security for the balance 50% warrants interference. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant has insisted that the present appeal be treated as a civil appeal, however the said issue need not detain this Court further in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2010) 4 SCC 772 Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. 8. The primar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out a prima facie case in his favour, the balance of convenience qua the deposit or otherwise lies in whose favour and whether the deposit of the duty demanded is likely to cause undue hardship to the appellant. 10. On the one hand the appellant contends its financial credibility and on the other hand undue economic hardship. The Tribunal has waived off substantial pre-deposit and has directed only 10% of the penalty amount to be deposited with a surety for the balance 50% which cannot be said to be undue hardship on the appellant. Considering its own claim of financial stability, on the facts of the case this Court finds no error in the impugned order. 11. Appeal and application are accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
