The Delhi High Court in the case Ajay Sagar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) observed while dismissing the plea moved wherein seeking directions for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement as it is being placed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of the rare and exceptional cases.
The bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma in the case observed and has stated that the petitioner was complicit and is actively being involved in the evasion of duty and the intent of these parties to mis-declare imports while acting in concert.
In the present case, the respondent or department came to the conclusion that various importers which include M/s M.M. Enterprises, were illegally importing worn clothing and the electronic goods by mis declaring them to be the assorted printed books.
However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers, on the basis of inputs received, came to the opinion that those importers were deliberately adopting the means to evade payment of appropriate customs duty.
The court in the case observed and has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner, to which a reply was submitted for the consideration of the adjudicating authority.
The said order came to be passed with the Adjudicating Authority wherein holding the petitioner liable to pay a penalty for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 under Section 112 and Rs. 1,00,00,000 as stated under Section 114AA of the Act.
Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT. Thus, it was not numbered as the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Section 129E of the Act. The petitioner also approached the court since Section 129E no longer incorporates a provision that may be invoked by either the Commissioner i.e., the Appeals Customs and Central Excise or the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to waive the condition of pre-deposit in cases of undue hardship.
The court stated that Section 129E, prior to its amendment, conferred discretion on the Commissioner, the Appeals and CESTAT in order to dispense with the deposit liable to be made while pursuing an appeal wherein it was found that the deposit of duty, interest, or penalty levied would cause undue hardship. It has also been contended by the petitioner in the plea that notwithstanding the deletion of the provision from Section 129E, the High Court, by virtue of its constitutional powers, would still be entitled to waive the condition of a pre-deposit in appropriate cases.
However, the writ jurisdiction would be liable to be exercised in rare but compelling and deserving cases when the cause of justice requires such a reduction in the matter. The court in the case observed and has noted that the said case would fall into the category of rare and the exceptional cases. Thus, the said circumstances do not warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea. The counsel, Advocate, Deepak Gandhi appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, Advocate, Satish Kumar represented the respondent.