9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 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 discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and stay of recovery pending appeals. Analysis: The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed on them by the Commissioner of Customs and stay of recovery pending appeals, alleging that the penalties were imposed contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, causing undue hardships. The case involved M/s. Pretty Women, engaged in manufacturing and exporting gold jewellery, under the EPZ scheme. The Department alleged clandestine removal of gold from the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) and unauthorized import of silver jewellery, proposing penalties and confiscation. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, imposed penalties and ordered confiscation against the appellants. The consultant for the appellants argued that there was no finding or evidence that silver jewellery was imported by M/s. Pretty Women, and the seized jewellery was not from their unit. He contended that statutory requirements for penalties under Section 112 were not satisfied, and the liability of customs duty on the imported gold was already decided against MMTC, the importer. Financial hardships and a strong prima facie case were pleaded for complete waiver of pre-deposit. The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the waiver, citing a previous case where penalties were upheld on partners of jewellery units despite duty liability being fixed on MMTC. However, the Tribunal's decision absolved M/s. Pretty Women from paying duty on the imported gold, leading to a reconsideration of the penalty imposition. The judge found insufficient evidence linking the seized jewellery to the appellants, concluding that the prerequisites for penalty under Section 112 were not met. Consequently, a complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts was granted due to a strong prima facie case. The appeals were scheduled for regular hearing on a later date.
|
