Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 319 - AT - CustomsIssue regarding pre-deposit in stay application - Misdeclartion of goods - import of drugs - Prednisolone BP/USP/IP - Confiscation of goods u/s 111(d) and 111(m) - Penalty u/s 112(a) whether the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellants were liable to penalty - Held that:- the goods were imported without a valid permission - they were liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) - There was a clear omission on the part of the importer which had rendered the goods liable to confiscation - the assesse cannot be escaped the penal consequences u/s 112(a) and he cannot abdicate his responsibility to the indenting agent - mens rea was not required for imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) - Once the activity of importation was complete, the goods become chargeable to Customs duty - The liability to confiscation of goods arises when imported goods violate the provisions contained in clause (a) to (p) of Section 111 relying upon UOI v. Security & Finance (P) Ltd [1975 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the lower appellate authority had rejected their appeal filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs. Since the goods have been absolutely confiscated and no clearance of goods were given to them they were not required to pay any duty at all and therefore the duty paid by them is sufficient to be treated as pre-deposit. - Held that:- the applicant had filed application before the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs claiming refund of customs duty paid by them against the impugned Bill of Entry. Their refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. The order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner rejecting the refund claim is not part of present appeal. Therefore, at this stage, the contention of the applicant that the amount which was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner can be treated as a pre-deposit in the present appeal against imposition of penalty is not acceptable. Waiver of pre deposit Assesse could not make prima facie case in his favor Rs. 50,0000 was ordered to be pre deposited - stay granted partly.
|