Neutral Citation Number is 2023:DHC:2253-DB

W.P.(C) 9477/2020

Page 1 of 4

$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(C) 9477/2020 & CM APPL. 30496/2020

SANDEEP AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima

and Ms. Monal, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari,

Senior Panel Counsel or

R-1 / UOI.

Mr.

Harpreet

Singh,

Senior Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an

order dated 30.09.2020 (compounding order No.05/2020). In

terms of the impugned order, the Chief Commissioner of

Customs (Preventive) has accepted the petitioner’s case for

compounding under the provisions of Section 137(3) of the

Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) read with Rule 4(3) of the

Customs (Compounding of Offences Rule), 2005.

2.

The

petitioner

is,

essentially,

aggrieved

by

the

quantification of the compounding fee as determined in the

impugned order.

3.

The petitioner had imported certain goods and declared the

assessable value of the said goods as ₹52,20,435.60/-. Out of

several items, only two items had been imported on payment of

Digitally Signed

By:HARMINDER KAUR

Signing Date:29.03.2023

15:22:24

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number is 2023:DHC:2253-DB

W.P.(C) 9477/2020

Page 2 of 4

appropriate duty amounting to ₹1,784/-, and it was found that the

other items were imported at concessional rate of duty under

Customs (Import of goods at concessional rate of duty for

manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2016 on the strength of

Central Excise Certificate dated 03.06.2016.

4.

On examination, it was found that the goods imported

were different from those that were declared in the Bill of Entry

and were not covered under the Central Excise Certificate.

Therefore, it was concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to

import the goods on concessional rates as claimed.

5.

The goods in question were seized under Section 110 of

the Customs Act. The statement of the petitioner (who was

proprietor of the importer firm M/s. Goodyear Technologies) was

recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he

practically admitted that the goods imported by him were not

eligible for concessional rate of duty. According to him, some

“mix up” had happened in the declared goods and he volunteered

to pay the duty applicable along with fine and penalty imposed in

respect of the import of the goods in question. He also waived the

issuance of any show cause notice.

6.

The goods were assessed at a value of ₹3,75,95,666/-

(Rupees Three Crores Seventy Five Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand

Six Hundred and Sixty Six Only). The petitioner also paid the

penalty as well as fine which was imposed.

7.

The learned Chief Commissioner of Customs considered

the petitioner’s case for compounding the offence under Section

137(3) of the Customs Act and found that there was no prior

incidence of violation. In addition he also found that the goods

imported were not of a nature, which precluded the importer to

make any application under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act.

Digitally Signed

By:HARMINDER KAUR

Signing Date:29.03.2023

15:22:24

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number is 2023:DHC:2253-DB

W.P.(C) 9477/2020

Page 3 of 4

8.

The learned Chief Commissioner of Customs allowed the

petitioner’s application and determined the compounding fee at

₹37,59,567/- being 10% of the assessed value of the goods.

9.

Rule 5 of the Customs (Compounding of Offences Rules),

2005 specifies that the compounding amount for an offence

under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act would be “upto 10%

of the amount of the market value of goods, subject to a

minimum of ₹1,00,000/-”. The compounding amount demanded

from the petitioner is thus, the maximum that could be imposed

under Rule 5 of the said Rules. Howeve