TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellants Ordered to Deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs to Stay Penalty Recovery</h1> <h3>MAHIMA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI</h3> MAHIMA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal) Issues:- Stay application against the order imposing penalty and confiscation of goods- Alleged mis-declaration and smuggling of goods- Valuation of confiscated items and financial hardship plea- Direction to deposit a specific amount pending appealAnalysis:The case involved a stay application against an order by the Commissioner of Customs imposing a penalty and confiscating goods due to alleged mis-declaration and smuggling. The appellants had imported pistachios but were found with additional items like saffron and a video camera. The proprietor admitted to the import of saffron along with the pistachios but claimed ignorance of the additional items until later. The adjudicating officer rejected the appellant's submissions, leading to the penalty and confiscation. The Commissioner upheld the decision, citing the failure to rectify the declaration as per Section 112A of the Customs Act.During the stay application, the senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Commissioner had not properly considered their submissions and that the consignor's mistake led to the inclusion of saffron. The counsel also deemed the penalty and redemption fine excessive. On the contrary, the SDR contended that it was a clear case of mis-declaration and smuggling, dismissing the plea of consignor's mistake. The Tribunal noted the lack of prima facie case for complete waiver of the penalty. They highlighted the absence of supporting evidence for the valuation of saffron and the appellant's failure to provide financial hardship proof.Considering all factors, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs by a specified date, with further compliance reporting required. Failure to adhere to this directive would risk dismissal of the appeal without additional notice. The order aimed to stay the recovery of the remaining penalty amount pending the appeal's merit-based resolution. The decision provided a structured approach to address the penalty issue while ensuring compliance with the deposit requirement for continued appeal consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
