Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, K. Prakash Anand, JJ.
Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs -Respondent
Misc. Order No. 40 of 87-A, 40 of 1987
Decided On : 20-02-1987
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)
1. This is a proceeding initiated and filed as an "Appeal" against the Orders of the Tribunal Nos. 313 to 367/1984-A (in Appeal Nos. 1847/83-A and 192 to 245/84-A) praying for the award of interest in a sum of Rs. 60,91,318.00 on the fine in lieu of confiscation paid in excess nearly 17 years ago together with Rs. 2,30,474.00 alleged to have been paid towards guarantee commission by the applicant to the bank on "excess Bank guarantee amount".
2. Briefly, the allegations appearing in the "appeal" supplemented from facts from the relevant papers in the record are -
(a) pursuant to orders in adjudication by the Collectors of Customs, Bombay and Calcutta, certain imported goods were confiscated absolutely in some cases and subject to redemption on payment of a fine in lieu thereof in certain others ;
(b) various appeals preferred against such orders, were disposed of by the Board of Central Excise and Customs in six orders between 1.6.1968 and 13.3.1969 by which redemption on payment of various fines in lieu of confiscation was allowed in all the cases. The aggregate of such fines amounted to Rs. 41,86,172/-;
(c) the applicant, in accordance with the orders in original as well as those in appeal allowing redemption, redeemed the goods from confiscation, paying altogether an amount of Rs. 23,45,855/- in cash on diverse dates between 3.11.1967 and 21.5.1969 and furnishing a bank guarantee in the balance sum of Rs. 18,40,317/-; in the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
(d) ultimately, as a sequel to the aforesaid appeals against the orders of the Board pursuant to a remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal by its order dated 30.5.1984, held that the fines in lieu of confiscation should be reduced to 25% of the C.I.F. value of the aggregate of the goods imported and observed further the consequential relief which flows from this order be given to the appellants forthwith as the matter is quite old. Further, we notice the appellants had also furnished bank guarantees for some of the amounts, although bulk of the fine had been paid in cash. As a result of the above decision, the said bank guarantees stand discharged";
(e) the excess of the fines in the aggregate paid by the applicant as aforesaid over the fines reduced by the Tribunal would work out to Rs. 21,38,128/-. Similarly, the excess amount for which the bank guarantee was furnished was in a sum of Rs. 16,56,185/-. The Bank also charged commission which worked out to Rs. 2,30,474/- over a period of 13 years and eleven months.
3. The relief claimed may be extracted partly as follows -
(a) "bare refund of the fines today (paid in excess - in consequence of the order of the Tribunal) does not compensate the appellant's colossal losses." "...the tremendous losses and agony undergone by the appellants can be compensated to a certain extent if the appellants are awarded interest on excess cash fines paid before 17 years";
(b) at 18%, which is the Bank rate, such interest on excess fines paid in cash for the period upto the date of the Tribunal's order -30.5.198f - comes to Rs. 60,91,318 (Annexure 'C');
(c) on the reversal of the orders of the Board and reduction of the fines, refund of the costs incurred and interest is the "only just and proper way of restitution being properly consequential on such reversal/modification". The glaring disproportion between the fines in lieu of confiscation and the penalties levied on the Mills should be taken into account in acceding to the prayer in the application;
(d) accordingly, it was prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to award payment of Rs. 63,21,792.00 (made up of Rs. 60,91,318.00 being interest on the excess fine paid in cash and Rs. 2,30,474.00 being the commission on the guarantee paid on the excess guarantee amount.
4. After the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal by the order dated 30.5.1984, [as stated in para 2(d) supra], the appellant in all the said appeals, filed as many as four applications. They a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
