1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Customs Appeals Upheld, Penalties Validated under Customs and Sea Customs Acts.</h1> The High Court upheld the Collector of Customs' decision in rejecting appeals and imposing penalties. The court found that the appellate authority ... Appeal - Writ jurisdiction Issues:Challenge to validity of proceedings and penalty imposed by Collector of Customs.1. Whether rejection of appeals without exercising discretion under Section 129 of the Customs Act was illegalRs.2. Whether imposition of penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act was unauthorizedRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner contended that the rejection of appeals without fully dispensing with the deposit of penalty was illegal. Section 129 of the Customs Act mandates depositing the duty demanded or penalty levied, with provision for the appellate authority to waive the deposit in cases of hardship. The appellate authority reduced the deposit amount from Rs. 3,23,800 to Rs. 1,50,000, exercising discretion as per the law. The High Court held that the authority properly exercised its discretion under Section 129, and it was not required to entirely dispense with the deposit. The petitioner failed to avail himself of the concession offered, leading to the dismissal of appeals.Issue 2:The petitioner argued that the penalty imposed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act was unauthorized as the proceedings commenced under the repealed Act. However, the High Court invoked Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows continuation of legal proceedings despite the repeal of an enactment. As the penalty provisions differed between the old and new Acts, the proceedings initiated under the old Act were deemed legal. Additionally, the petitioner had benefited from a lesser penalty and due process under the new Act. The High Court declined to interfere based on the lack of prejudice to the petitioner and highlighted the petitioner's unexplained delay in approaching the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.