2026 (5) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age of duty and penalty or percentage of penalty, as the case may be. The decision [order dated 28th February 2022 in civil appeal no. 1566 of 2022] of the Hon'ble Supreme in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India leaves no room for doubt on the strict adherence thereto. But then, we do not have application of waiver of pre-deposit before us. Nor are we unmindful that indulgence of waiver sought by appellant, from compulsion of circumstance, is beyond the control of a creature of the statute to even consider. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Lalit Kuthia v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III [2024:BHC-OS:20290] has acknowledged extraordinary circumstances that may merit such dilution. But then, we do not have bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmitted that the penalty imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is not by transitive association with confiscated goods but direct ownership of the seized gold. 4. Learned Authorized Representative cited before us the inflexibility of section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 after amendment of 2014 that precludes any discretion available with the Tribunal for foregoing pre-deposit. He further argued that, with the gold having been absolutely confiscated, only penalty remained at stake and that confiscation, or fine in lieu thereof, is beyond the pale of pre-deposit provisions. 5. Normally, at this stage of notice of non-maintainability, we do not look to the facts but here we are compelled to in the light of facts narrated in suppor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le belief of having been smuggled and, instead of the customs having to furnish evidence, the onus reverses only to the extent of evincing licit procurement upon which customs officials resume obligation to evidence smuggling and, without having trace of further provenance, section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 is erased vis-à-vis the gold. For such gold to be held back, for whatever cause, from the purported owner is as good as deposit of customs duties pending investigation. Therefore, there is no reason to assign a different treatment to the goods in which the confiscatory appropriation is, of itself, in dispute. For the above reasons, the value of absolutely confiscated gold suffices for compliance with section 129E of Customs Act, 19....