|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 36 Records
-
2020 (5) TMI 677
Authorization for important clearance of secondhand digital multifunction print and copying machines - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned interim order passed by the High Court, more particularly, taking note that certain special leave petitions assailing the same impugned order have already been dismissed by this Court on 17.02.2020. Accordingly, the instant special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 668
Permission for withdrawal of petition - provisional release of the goods - HELD THAT:- HELD THAT:- The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
-
2020 (5) TMI 644
Impleadment of Airport Authority of India [AAI], Air Operator, and Concessionaire - HELD THAT:- The respondents will be at liberty to file a combined counter-affidavit both qua the original writ petition as well as the additional-affidavit, if any, filed by the petitioners.
Renotify the matter on 14.05.2020.
-
2020 (5) TMI 643
Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty - non-submission of installation certificate within 6 months and further extension of time not sought from the Customs - violation of conditions of the N/N. 97/2004 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant has violated the conditions of the notification no.97/2004 dt. 17/09/2004. Further, the imported goods were not installed within 6 months and no application for extension of time was submitted to the Customs as per the condition of the notification. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the submissions of the appellant has come to the conclusion that the appellant has violated the condition of the Notification No.97/2004 and consequently has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- and penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Thus, there are no infirmity in the imposition of redemption fine and penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case since the appellant has not complied with the conditions of the notification No.97/2004 dt. 17/09/2004 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (5) TMI 642
Condonation of delay of 135 days in filing appeal - case of appellant is that delay caused due to applicant being busy in compliance of some Department’s direction and also that the Counsel did not received the notice in time - HELD THAT:- The ground that applicant being busy in compliance of some Department’s direction, is not opined sufficient explanation for the delay as big as of 135 days - There have been findings against the present importer in the decision of M/S. JAISWAL IMPORT CARGO SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2019 (8) TMI 497 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] as was filed by the applicants, co-noticee. It becomes clear that before the said decision the applicant was not inclined to file the appeal and the present appeal is the outcome due to the said decision - thus the reason is not acceptable for not been the sufficient cause explaining as big delay as of 135 days.
Delay on the ground that the Counsel did not received the notice in time - HELD THAT:- There is no statutory mandate of any notice, summon, or copy of any order to be served upon the Counsel. The service has to be effected on the party concerned. The said service, in the present case of the order under challenge dated 22.03.2019 admittedly got affected on the appellant on 26th March, 2019 itself. Failure on his part to not to approach his Counsel and to not to seek the further advice, amounts to negligence, as well as non-pursuance on the part of the appellant. Same cannot be held a “sufficient cause” as is required under section 5 of Limitation Act to explain the impugned delay. In absence thereof, the delay cannot be condoned.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 641
Charges demanded by CFSs/ICDs for release of containers - HELD THAT:- As far as the Container Freight Stations (CFSs) and Inland Container Depots (ICDs) in minor ports are concerned, the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions and subject to the outcome of the present petition, shall be at liberty to have its containers released on payment of such charges as may be demanded by such CFSs/ICDs,.
As far as the CFSs/ICDs in major ports are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 4 submits that the CFSs are bound by its direction dated 23.04.2020 and the respondent no. 1 and 4 are in the process of ensuring compliance of such CFSs with the said direction.
-
2020 (5) TMI 615
Issuance of detention certificate - Waiver of demurrage and detention charges - Regulation 6(1)(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 - Ministry of Shipping Order No.PD- 14033/4/2020-PD VII dated 21.04.2020 and instructions dated 24.04.2020 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the duty levied by the Customs for release of the goods by making provisional assessment and therefore, the respondent may be directed to consider such request.
The respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for provisional assessment and pass such order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 614
Impleadment of petition - demurrage charges in accordance with the impugned notification dated 01.04.2020 - HELD THAT:- This application has been filed by the petitioners for impleadment of three further respondents (viz., Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Expenditure; the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Zone) as respondent nos. 9, 10 and 11 in the present petition. The petitioners claim that the presence of the three respondents is necessary to enable complete adjudication of the disputes raised.
List before the roster bench on 01.06.2020.
-
2020 (5) TMI 589
Application for amendment of petition - petitioner seeks permission to amend the petition so as to include a challenge the notification bearing no. S.O. 1119(E) dated 17.03.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India - COFEPOSA Act - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Section 7 of COFEPOSA shows that the said provision enables the appropriate Government to take action in terms of the said provision in respect of a person against whom a detention order has been made. The pre-requisite for the Government to exercise the power under the said provision is that the proposed detenue has absconded or is concealing himself, as a result whereof the order cannot be executed. Besides, the appropriate Government “should have a reason to believe” that the situation meets the criteria for resorting to Section 7 of the Act. Merely because the aforesaid provision stipulates that failure to comply with directions issued by the Government would amount to a separate and distinct offence, it does not necessarily mean that the challenge to a notification under the said provision has to be categorically by way of a separate and a distinct petition.
The detention order would be quashed and the consequential proceedings which have been initiated under Section 7 of the Act, on account of non-compliance, would continue to survive. Contravention of section 7 may be a separate offence contemplated under the Act, requiring independent consideration, but the substantive question before us at this stage is not whether the same deserves to be quashed or not - since the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act emanate from the detention order, the proper recourse is to allow the petitioner to impugn the same along with the main petition.
Another crucial aspect of Section 7 flows from the verdict of the apex court dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the Court while entertaining a petition challenging the detention order at a pre-execution/pre-arrest stage. In the case of ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA VERSUS ALKA SUBHASH GADIA [1990 (12) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court has emphasized that while the court has the power to interfere with the detention order even at the pre-execution stage, but they are not obliged to do so nor will it be proper for them to do, save in exceptional cases. The discretion of the Court has to be exercised judicially on well settled principles and the detenu cannot claim such exercise of power as a matter of right.
In a situation where the proposed detenu is an absconder, the Court while entertaining a petition at the pre-execution stage, would have to exercise extra caution and take his conduct into consideration. At the same time, the petitioner can demonstrate that the respondents have failed to exhibit earnestness in taking an action under section 7 of the Act. Indeed, in the present case, the petitioner has alleged that the action of the respondents is an act of malice in law.
Notification under Section 7 of the Act and the facts and circumstances leading to its issuance, would have a bearing on the petitioner’s challenge to the detention order one way or the other. The proposed amendments would not entirely change the scope of the main petition. Even if it did, it is settled law that the principle of constructive res judicata does not apply to petitions alleging violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner is directed to place the amended writ petition incorporating the grounds and the prayer within a period of three days from today with an advance copy to the respondents - application allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 588
Amendment in shipping bills - rejection of request made by the Appellant for making amendment in the shipping bills on the ground that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary evidence, as was required under section 149 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to distinguish the requirements of paragraph 2 of the notification and paragraph 3 of the notification. The documents which the Commissioner (Appeals) sought from the Appellant are in relation to the requirements of paragraph 3 of the notification and in fact even the information sought in the format is a format contemplated in paragraph 3 of the notification. Paragraph 2 of the notification required a declaration to be made in the shipping bills regarding the intention to claim rebate either under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of the notification. The appellant had not indicated the said declaration and it is this declaration that was sought to be submitted in the shipping bills through the amendment sought by the Appellant. Neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have mentioned about any requirement of paragraph 2 of the notification not having been met by the Appellant.
For applicability of section 149 of the Customs Act relating to amendment of documents, all that has to be seen is that documentary evidence should have been in existence at the time the goods were exported. There is no document which was not in existence at the time the goods were exported for the simple reason that all the Appellant was claiming by the amendment was incorporation of the declaration that the Appellant intended to avail the rebate under paragraph 2 of the notification. Under paragraph 2 of the notification all that has to be seen for calculation of the rebate is the schedule. The documents mentioned in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) were not required to be examined.
It is, therefore, clear from the nature of the amendment that was sought by the Appellant in the Bills of entry and also from the provisions of section 149 of the Customs Act and the notification dated 29 June, 2012 that the amendment sought by the appellant in the shipping bills of entry was liable to be allowed since only a declaration was sought by the Appellant that rebate should be granted by refund of service tax paid on the specified services under paragraph 2 of the notification - Appellant shall be permitted to carry out the amendments in the shipping bills.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (5) TMI 566
Confiscation of imported goods - allegation that goods at the time of import were not bearing MRP/RSP - HELD THAT:- There is no violation by the appellant as the goods have been imported through Nava Sheva which is the notified sea port and further ICD, Garhi Harsaru falls under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj. The provision of Legal Metrology Act read with the rules thereunder do not prohibit stickering as regards MRP, prior to out of charge given to the customs - Admittedly, such stickering has been done in the facts of the present case.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (5) TMI 542
Waiver of Demurrage Charges levied by ICDs/CFSs/Port/Terminal Operators during lockdown - Permission to traders/members of petitioner/Foundation to lift their material from their respective ports without payment of penal charges - lockdown and pandemic COVID situation - case of petitioner is that petitioner/Foundation is not seeking complete waiver of charges levied by CFS on importers/ traders for handling and clearance of cargo, but is praying for waving off of ground rent penal charges, demurrage, Container Detention Charges etc., especially when they themselves have been exempted from paying Port ground rent charges during the lock down.
Whether the guidelines/letters which are only advisory in nature and contain no directions under any statute can bind CFS and direct them not to charge ground rent etc.?
HELD THAT:- The advisory issued by CFS Association shows that it is also alive to the situation and taking a sympathetic view and giving considerable discount in ground rent/ penal charges.
Letters issued by the concerned Ministries - HELD THAT:- On careful examination of all the facts and submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The circulars/guidelines and advisories issued by respondent no.1 and 2 are not binding upon respondent no. 3 to 6. Some of the advisories only contemplate that authorities concerned should adopt sympathetic and humanitarian approach and has advised them not to charge ground rent or penal charges. In these circumstances, there is no material on record which prima facie suggests that any right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondents. This Court is further of the opinion that since respondent no.3 to 6 are not bound by various guidelines/ letters/ advisories issued by respondent no.1 & 2, the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioner.
There are no grounds for grant of injunction/restrain order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents are made out at this stage - The application filed by petitioner under Section 151 CPC for injunction is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 524
SEZ unit - Purchase of High-Speed Diesel (HSD) without payment of excise duty from a local refinery - validity of Guideline dated 6.4.2015 bearing Reference No. P.613/2006-SEZ - period in dispute between 1.4.2015 and 15.02.2016 - HELD THAT:- The liability to pay excise duty is on the manufacturer and not the buyer though burden of such duty is passed on the to the buyer. There is no provision under the Central Excise Act,1944 by virtue of which excise duty is payable on reverse charge basis by the buyer. Therefore, interpretation of the provision of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 cannot be in direct violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Duty if any, is payable only by the manufacturer - Further, the exemption under Section 26(1) is subject to the restriction in section 26(2) of the Act. The phrase used in section 26(2), is “the Central Government may prescribe the manner in which, and the terms and conditions subject to which, the exemptions, concessions, drawback or other benefits shall be granted to the Developer or entrepreneur under sub-section (1)”.
Further, Supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Unit or Developer for their authorized operations are eligible for export benefits as admissible under the Foreign Trade Policy - thus, the DTA supplier is not only entitled to the exports benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy in terms of Rule 23 of Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 but was also entitled to clear the goods under bond or claim rebate of tax/duty paid by it in terms of Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules.
That apart procurement of HSD by the petitioner from IOCL did not qualify as an import within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2006. Therefore, there cannot be a demand for customs duty and interest thereon on the excise duty foregone by IOCL at the time of clearance of HSD from its factory/refinery to the petitioner under section 28 or 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Further, Rule 47(5) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 has been inserted vide GSR 772 (E) dated 5.8.2016 with effect from 8.8.2016. As per the above provision, “Refund, Demand, Adjudication, Review and Appeal with Regard to Matters Relating to Authorised Operations under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, transactions, and goods and services related thereto, shall be made only by the jurisdictional Customs and Central Excise Authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made the render or notification issued under”.
The impugned show cause notice is also liable to be declared as without jurisdiction. Even if, it is assumed that the clearance of HSD Oil was without the authority of law by the DTA supplier (IOCL). Only the jurisdictional officer concerned under the Central Excise Act, 1944 within whose jurisdiction IOCL is registered is competent to issue a show cause notice to recover the excise duty under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the impugned show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable and the demand proposed is liable to be quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 506
Principles of Natural Justice - request for cross examination denied - valuation of imported goods - short duty paid goods - HELD THAT:- Though it was submitted that the statements recorded from the petitioners were retracted, there are no material on record found - Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have filed any of the statements of the persons recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1982 nor the letter of retraction.
Since the primary purpose of obtaining statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was for investigation and not for obtaining confessional statements/admission of liability, the respondents were asked to find out whether they could proceed with the show cause proceedings based on evidence gathered without placing primary reliance on the statements recorded from any of the three persons - the object of empowering an officer of the customs department to record evidence under section 108 is to collect information of the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or concealment of contraband or avoidance of duty of Excise so as to enable them to collect the evidence of the proof of contravention of the provisions of the act for initiating proceedings for further action of confiscation of the contraband or imposition of penalty under the Act etc.
The adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot solely be based on the inculpatory statements of witnesses and noticee alone. Such statements can be only used for corroborating the case which the Department proposes to establish before the quasi-judicial authorities - The department is bound to prove the case based on balance of probabilities as per well-recognised principle of law in the case of departmental adjudications
The 1st respondent is directed to complete the adjudication proceedings within a period of 9 months from date of receipt of this order since the dispute pertains to import made by the petitioner between 2010 and 2013 - It is for the 1st respondent to take a call as to whether it proposes to solely rely on the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 for confirming the demand in which case, the 1st respondent shall produce such persons for cross examination by the petitioners - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 476
Waiver / remission from payment of demurrage charges,Transshipment and other charges - storage of containers by the custodian of the goods - Rejection of issue of “Detention Certificate’ - delay in transshipment - It is the case of the petitioner that since it has wide-bodied cargo aircrafts and since there is no facility for landing of such aircrafts in Trivandrum, the petitioner brought the cargo in these aircrafts to the Chennai International Airport for being transshipped to Trivandrum/Calicut by road - petitioner requested to issue of “Detention Certificate’ to claim waiver / remission from payment of demurrage charges from the 3rd/4th respondent at the earliest - HELD THAT:- The procedure for issue of “Detention Certificate’ was contained in Public Notice No. 111 of 1985 dated 29.07.1985 of the Bombay Custom House. Issue of “Detention Certificate’ was an innovation by the Customs Authorities. This was introduced much prior to Handling of Cargo in Custom Areas Regulations, 2009.
Regulation 6(1)(l)of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 mandates that the Customs Cargo Service provider shall subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be - As per Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, a Customs Cargo Service Provider which includes the Air Port Authority of India cannot charge any rent or demurrage on the seized or detained or confiscated goods by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be. This was perhaps framed in line with Public Notice No.111 of 1985 dated 29.07.1985 of Bombay Customs House.
The Superintendent of Customs or the Appraiser or the Inspector of Customs or the preventive officer or examining officer as the case may be can exercise the power to recommend waiver of demurrage and other charges that are chargeable by the custodian of the goods in whose place/premises the goods are stored before being transshipped.
In Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. M/s. Aminchand Pyarelal, [1975 (9) TMI 170 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Port Trusts were under a statutory obligation to render services of various kinds in the larger public and national interest - The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the demurrage charges are levied in order to ensure quick clearance of the cargo from the harbour and the rates are fixed in such a way that they would make it unprofitable for the importer to use the port premises as a warehouse. In case there is congestion in the port it would affect the free movement of ships and of essential goods. Therefore, the scale of rates had to be framed in such a manner that it worked both as an incentive to the importers to remove the goods as expeditiously as possible from the transit areas and also acted as a disincentive to keep the goods in the premises of the Board for a long time, thereby increasing the demurrage charges substantially with passage of time - The Court thus held that it was the duty of the Board to recover rates; the Board had a lien on the goods and the right to seize and detain the goods, until the rates were fully paid and to sell the goods if the rates were not paid and recover the same. It was held that certain concessions may be given taking into account the hardship of the importers, but the legality of the rates cannot be questioned.
The authorities under the Airport Authority Act, 1994 require certificate from the Customs for granting waiver from payment of demurrage under the policy framed under Regulation 6 of the Airport Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and Express Goods and Postal Mail) Regulations, 2003 - In fact, such certificate need not be confined to the circumstances specified in Public Notice No.111 of 1985 dated 29.07.1985 of the Bombay Custom House alone. It can be issued in appropriate case to cover the circumstances specified in the Policy of the Airport Authority as per Regulation 6 of the Airport Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and Express Goods and Postal Mail) Regulations, 2003.
Though, it is not the case of the abuse by the officers of the Customs, there are sufficient indications to show that there was a complete disruption of service at the Air Cargo Complex during the relevant period due to alleged arrest of the officers. In absence of the officers to receive the transshipment application, there could have been total disruption and no application was received which perhaps may have led to the delay - If there were no proper officers or there were only few officers to handle the workload due to alleged arrest and the delay in receiving the transshipment application for being processed by the 1st respondent should not be at the cost of the petitioner. If indeed there was a complete breakdown due to alleged arrest and resulted in disruption of the operations at the Air Cargo Complex, the petitioner should be compensated as such delay cannot be attributed by the petitioner. This would require proper facts being established by the petitioner.
This aspect would require proper verification - Issue is therefore left open for the petitioner to establish that Customs Department is liable to compensate the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (5) TMI 475
Jurisdiction - power of DRI Officials to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- The issue relating to jurisdiction of DRI Officials to issue show cause notice to the Assessee in such cases is said to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangli Impex vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay order - in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has clearly protected the interest of both the Revenue as well as the Assessee by directing the Assessing Authority to keep the matter pending and maintain status quo till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the appeal of the Revenue in the case of Mangli Impex, filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, as in our opinion, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 474
Permission to amend the shipping bill - HELD THAT:- Respondent No.2 states that though the power exist to correct a shipping bill under Section 149 of the Customs Act, a proper application needs to be made by the Petitioner, to be considered as per law. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that an application will be made within a period of one week from today - If such application is made within a period of one week from today, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 on instructions states that it would be decided as per law within a period of four weeks. Statement is accepted.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 430
Issuance of license and allocation of quota qua Calcined Pet Coke - Request for allocation of CPC - limitation on quantum of CPC - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M.C. MEHTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2018 (11) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) (domestic as well as imported) can be used as raw-material for anode making in the Aluminium industry with the revised BIS specifications, the imported raw-material cannot exceed 0.5 MT per annum in total.
Nothing survives in the captioned writ petition and the interlocutory application, and the same can, thus, be disposed of - The matter is, however, directed to be listed for compliance, at the request of counsel for parties, on 04.06.2020.
-
2020 (5) TMI 370
Calculation of interest on delayed refund - relevant date - correction of calculation of interest from 27.01.2010 namely from the date on which the interest claimed is to be paid - Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal after considering rival contentions raised has rightly held that claims were returned due to deficiency and deficiency memos having been addressed itself would evidence that there cannot be a claim for interest as no show cause notice was issued, is erroneous conclusion as provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, do not contemplate for returning of any refund claims - As rightly held by the Tribunal cause of action for claiming interest would arise after 3 months from the date of filing of said refund claim. If at all the application is defective, it would only be an irregularity not illegality.
The application for refund would not be contrary to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such we are not inclined to admit this appeal, since there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal for being adjudicated - appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 369
Smuggling - Contraband Gold - Confiscation - imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Reading of Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 indicates that in every case under the said Chapter i.e., Chapter XIV under which anything is liable to be confiscated or any person is liable to be imposed with the penalty has to be adjudicated under Clause (a) of Section 122 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or a Joint Commissioner of Customs without limit. Under Clause (b) the penalty has to be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs where the value of goods came to be confiscated does not exceed ₹ 5 Lakhs and under Clause (c) same shall be adjudicated by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs where the value of the goods confiscated would not exceed ₹ 50,000/-.
Undisputedly, in the instant case, value of goods was more than ₹ 5 lakhs and as per the appraisal value, who had appraised the gold bar so confiscated and had certified the weight at 2566.05 grams of 24 carot gold of foreign origin he had valued at ₹ 77,87,962/-. Before levy of penalty show cause notice came to be issued by Additional Commissioner of Customs proposing to levy penalty on appellant.
It would clearly emerge from the orders of the original authority as affirmed by the appellate authority the statement of appellant recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act penalty under Section 112(a) came to be imposed. In fact, whatsapp messages exchanged between the noticees including the appellant herein, which formed part and parcel of the show cause notice and adjudication order, it came to be held that appellant herein has admitted in his statement furnished under Section 108 of the Customs Act and his role in the act of smuggling of gold - In fact, appellant has not retracted his retrospective statement and it has never been contended by the appellant that statement has been obtained from him under threat or duress or coercion. It is only after show cause notice was issued proposing to levy penalty, appellant has tried to retrace his steps and not before the said date.
Appeal dismissed.
|
