Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2009 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2009 (4) TMI 721 - AT - Customs

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding payment of duty along with redemption fine for confiscated goods.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved a crucial issue regarding the interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled that when goods are confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125, duty is also to be discharged as per the provision of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appeal was scheduled for multiple dates due to adjournments requested by the appellants, but they failed to appear for the hearing without any adjournment request. The learned D.R. contended that the issue was settled in previous Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that duty is payable when goods are redeemed on payment of a redemption fine under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision in Central India Institute of Medical Science v. C.C. (ACC), Mumbai was cited in support of this argument.

In this case, 8,786 Kgs of imported polyester yarn were seized without payment of duty. The duty demand under Section 28 was set aside, but the Commissioner held that Section 125(2) applied, making the appellants liable to pay duty and clear the goods. The appellants argued that since the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to demand duty, they should not be required to pay duty under Section 125. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that Section 125(2) clearly mandates payment of duty along with the redemption fine when goods are redeemed in lieu of confiscation. As the appellants did not demonstrate that the imported goods had already incurred duty, the appeal was deemed meritless and rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the statutory requirement under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the payment of duty in addition to the redemption fine when goods are redeemed in lieu of confiscation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates