TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bangkok to Kolkata with assorted garments, mobile phones with accessories, micro SD adapters with memory card, mobile phone batteries etc. along with Indian currency Rs. 25,000/- Seven other passengers were also intercepted in the green channel and similar items were recovered from their possession. These passenger claimed to be carrying these goods on behalf of Shri Jaswinder Singh. The total value of the goods were valued at Rs. 7,70,459/-. Since none of them could produce licit documents relating to lawful acquisition and importation of the impugned goods recovered the said goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Separate summons were issued to each of the seven passengers but only Shri Jaswinder Singh appeared givi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to deposit the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- prior to hearing of the appeal on its merits was most uncalled for and bad in law inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 25,000/- plus baggage items valued at Rs. 1,92,725/- was in the custody of the department which had been allowed to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 50,000/- 4.2. That the non-consideration of the applicant's stay petition which is very clear unequivocal language explained the undue hardship that the applicant was having to arrange the sum of Rs. 15,000/- coupled with the fact that the applicant was facing prosecution under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 before a Court of Law for baggage valued at Rs. 2,17,725/- should by itself been a ground for the Commission of Customs (Appeals) to waive t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 12.01.2016, in response to which the following submissions have been made: 5.1. That the contention of the applicant is not correct in as much as the settled position of law is that appeal as a whole is liable to be dismissed for failure of the applicant to deposit the amount of penalty. That there is no specific provision in Section 129E that in the case where the applicant fails to pre-deposit the amount of penalty, the appeal should be dismissed. 5.2. That the appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) was against Order-in Original issued after adjudication under quasi judicial proceedings. That the criminal proceeding launched before a Court of law has little or no relevance to the appeal against the quasi judicial proceedings. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 10.05.2007 in which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- Indian currency is also in the custody of the department. That the revision application be taken up for hearing on its merits for final disposal. 6.2. That the applicant during the adjudication proceedings had requested for having his seized baggage examined and value thereafter to be re-determined but the same was not acceded to by the then adjudicating authority. 6.3. That due to the fictitious and illogical valuation on the basis of the internet and market enquiry with details and evidence of the valuation obtained through the internet and from the market was never made available to the applicant as such the same should not have been used for the purpose of determination of such an arbitrary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 29.12.2012 and ordered for confiscation of the impugned goods under Section Ill(d), (i) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same against payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on applicant under Section 112 (a) & (b) of Customs Act, 1962. The applicant filed appeal along with stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The stay petition was decided by Order-in-Stay No. 27/Cus(Bag)/ Kol(AP)/2013 dated 19.08.2013 and stay was granted subject to deposit of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on or before 19.09.2013 under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant failed to comply with the conditions laid down under the Stay Order. Therefore the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position crystal clear that for filing appeal before the appellate authority, the appellant shall pending the appeal, deposit the duty demanded or penalty imposed unless specifically dispensed with by the Appellate Authority. 10. Upon perusal of the records, Government observes that appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) and the Stay Petition was decided by Order-in-Stay no. 27/Cus(Bag)/Kol(AP)/2013 dated 19.08.2013 and stay was granted, subject to deposit of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the penalty amount on or before 19.09.2013 under Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962. The applicant was informed that subject to compliance with the above direction, the appeal will be heard on merits and was further informed that in case they....