2014 (1) TMI 171 - HC - Customs

Petitioner directed to deposit costs, appear before Appellate Authority for a hearing.

KT. Holidays Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others

The court directed the petitioner to deposit costs and appear before the Appellate Authority for a hearing. The Appellate Authority was instructed to ... Imposition of fiscal penalty - Confiscation of goods - Goods cleared by furnishing forged bank gurantee - Held that:- petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the Appellate Authority despite various opportunities granted to it in this regard - Accordingly, it is directed that the impugned order dated 27.6.2013 passed by respondent no.3 be kept in abeyance, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.one lac as cost with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two (2) weeks from today. The receipt of the deposit of the costs shall be submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner shall also appear before the Appellate Authority for the purpose of hearing on 16.12.2013 at 11 am. The Appellate Authority may either hear the appeal on that date or fix an appropriate date for the purpose of hearing it. Only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to make its submissions before the Appellate Authority and if the petitioner does not appear on that date, the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall revive without any further orders from the Court. In that event, the petitioner shall have no further right to impugn the said order - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Submission of forged Bank Guarantee for import clearance.2. Imposition of fiscal penalty by the Foreign Trade Development Authority.3. Appeal before the Appellate Authority.4. Settlement of customs dues by the Settlement Commission.5. Consideration of Settlement Commission's order by the Appellate Authority.Issue 1: Submission of forged Bank Guarantee for import clearanceThe petitioner obtained EPCG authorization for importing two motor cars but submitted a forged Bank Guarantee for clearance. A show cause notice was issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, for imposing a penalty. The Foreign Trade Development Authority imposed a fiscal penalty of Rs. 46,15,600 on the petitioner.Issue 2: Imposition of fiscal penalty by the Foreign Trade Development AuthorityThe petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice and did not appear before the Appellate Authority despite opportunities. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal due to the lack of evidence or arguments from the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fiscal penalty imposed by the Foreign Trade Development Authority.Issue 3: Appeal before the Appellate AuthorityThe petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the fiscal penalty imposed. However, the appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not produce any documents or proof of payment of custom duty and interest. The petitioner failed to appear and make submissions before the Appellate Authority, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.Issue 4: Settlement of customs dues by the Settlement CommissionThe Settlement Commission settled the petitioner's liability for customs duty, interest, and fines. The petitioner deposited the required amounts as per the Settlement Commission's order, including a fine in lieu of confiscation of seized vehicles. Individual penalties were also imposed on the petitioner and another individual, who were granted immunity from paying penalties exceeding specific amounts.Issue 5: Consideration of Settlement Commission's order by the Appellate AuthorityThe petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission's order should be deemed as a settlement under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, the Appellate Authority did not consider this plea as the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before it. The court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the petitioner's contention and kept the impugned order in abeyance, subject to the petitioner depositing a specified amount as costs.In conclusion, the court directed the petitioner to deposit costs and appear before the Appellate Authority for a hearing. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider the petitioner's submissions and pass a fresh order within a specified timeframe. Failure to appear before the Appellate Authority would result in the revival of the previous order without further recourse.