(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) These Appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in holding that the appellant was liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in holding that the appellant was liable for penalty although the appellant had never claimed ownership over the rough diamonds exported by exporting firms situated at Hongkong to India and admittedly no bills of entry were filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in holding that the consignments of rough diamonds were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act when the same were accompanied by Kimberly Process Certificate and the same were also confirmed by the exporter.
Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in holding that the appellant was liable for penalty when the appellant has no control or role to play in the issue of Kimberly Process Certificate which was issued from the country of export and on an application by the exporter.
Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in holding that the consignments of rough diamonds in question were liable for confiscation in light of Circular No.53/2003 dated 23rd June 2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, particularly clause 6 thereof.
Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in not following its own decision in the case of Sahil Diamonds v/s. C.C., reported in (2010) 250 ELT 310, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ORDER ON CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.490, 491, 492, 493, 488 & 489 Issue notice returnable on 11th April 2012.
After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we are convinced that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case to have interim order restraining the respondent authority from taking any adverse action or recovery proceeding for realization of the penalty, which is the subject matter of these Appeals. We, accordingly, pass such order for a period of fortnight from today with liberty to apply for extension on the selfsame application after notice upon the respondent.
Direct service permitted.
(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Acting C.J.) (J.B.Pardiwala, J.) /moin Top