9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner by enforcement of three bank guarantees to the tune of ₹ 1,08,40,000/- and also by appropriation of ₹ 26 Lakhs, already paid by the petitioner on 16.02.2009 - Therefore, it is evident that the statutory requirement of making pre-deposit pending disposal of the appeal has been met with by the petitioner. When such being the factual position, it is to be seen as to whether the respondent/Revenue is entitled to direct the petitioner to keep the remaining bank guarantees alive pending disposal of the appeal. The claim made by the petitioner before this Court that the respondents are not entitled to seek for keeping remaining bank guarantees alive, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the order of adjudication put to challenge before the Tribunal includes a direction for enforcement of all 29 bank guarantees totally valued at ₹ 3,44,16,000/-, which has to be considered and decided only by the Tribunal. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that making a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demand is the statutory obligation of the appellant/petitioner to maintain the appeal before the appellate forum. Compliance of such statutory requirement itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfiscation and a redemption fine of ₹ 18 crores was imposed. Further, penalty of a sum of ₹ 17,71,29,717/- equal to the duty demand was also imposed on the petitioner under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, finalization of provisional assessment was ordered in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of the value determined in the order and 29 bank guarantees totally valued at ₹ 3,44,16,000/- furnished were directed to be enforced towards the demand. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 04.05.2018 to the second respondent stating that they would file a statutory appeal against the order in original dated 28.04.2018 and in which case, they are required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demand only and therefore, the amount of ₹ 1,06,84,728/- alone is payable out of those bank guarantees after adjusting the amount of ₹ 26 Lakhs already paid by the petitioner during the investigation. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the bank guarantees to the extent of ₹ 1,06,84,728/- may be encashed and the balance bank guarantees may be returned to them. The petitioner also informed the authorities that they canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder in original dated 28.04.2018, they preferred the appeal before the CESTAT and thus, they are bound to pay only 7.5% as pre-deposit towards the duty demand. Therefore, he contended that the respondents are not entitled to either enforce or direct the petitioner to keep the remaining bank guarantees alive over and above the sum of ₹ 1,06,84,728/-. He further submitted that already the Revenue has encashed the sum of ₹ 1,08,40,000/-, out of 3 bank guarantees referred to in the impugned proceedings and therefore, they are bound to return the remaining bank guarantees, apart from the fact that they are not entitled to insist upon the petitioner to keep the remaining bank guarantees alive pending disposal of the appeal. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner has suffered the order in original, which includes the enforcement of all 29 bank guarantees to the tune of ₹ 3,44,16,000/- and therefore, only to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, the petitioner was called upon to keep the remaining bank guarantees alive and thus, such direction is not go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 as applicable. (iii) I confiscate the goods imported by M/s.IP Softcorn vide the 32 provisionally assessed Bills of Entry (as listed in Annexure A to show cause notice) liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and I allow the confiscated goods to be redeemed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 18,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Only). (iv) I confirm the demand of differential duty of ₹ 17,71,29,717/- (Rupees Seventeen Crore Seventy One Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventeen Only) under Section 18 read with Section 28(8) of Customs Act, 1962. (v) I confirm the demand of interest at appropriate rate under Section 18 read with Section 28 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) I appropriate the amount of ₹ 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) and vide TR-6 Challan No.0821 dated 16.02.2009 towards the duty demand confirmed at (ii) above. (vii) I impose penalty of ₹ 17,71,29,717/- (Rupees Seventeen Crore Seventy One Lakhs Twenty Nine Tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 7.5% of the duty demand has also been met with by the petitioner by enforcement of three bank guarantees to the tune of ₹ 1,08,40,000/- and also by appropriation of ₹ 26 Lakhs, already paid by the petitioner on 16.02.2009. Therefore, it is evident that the statutory requirement of making pre-deposit pending disposal of the appeal has been met with by the petitioner. When such being the factual position, it is to be seen as to whether the respondent/Revenue is entitled to direct the petitioner to keep the remaining bank guarantees alive pending disposal of the appeal. I find that the claim made by the petitioner before this Court that the respondents are not entitled to seek for keeping remaining bank guarantees alive, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the order of adjudication put to challenge before the Tribunal includes a direction for enforcement of all 29 bank guarantees totally valued at ₹ 3,44,16,000/-, which has to be considered and decided only by the Tribunal. Therefore, the outcome of the order to be passed by the Tribunal, will certainly have a bearing on the bank guarantees already executed by the petitioner. In such a case, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
