Summary
An appellant facing a customs penalty sought waiver of the statutory appeal deposit by relying on the hardship discretion available before the 2014 amendment, although the penalty order and appeal came after that amendment. The Court held that the substituted Section 129E governed the appeal. The earlier date of the alleged smuggling did not permit combining the new reduced deposit with the old waiver power. The appeal was dismissed, with two further months to comply with the deposit requirement.
Issues
- Whether the pre-amendment hardship waiver remained available for an appeal filed after substitution of Section 129E.
- Whether the date of the alleged offence entitled the appellant to the earlier deposit regime.
Provisions considered
- Section 129E, as substituted with effect from 6 August 2014, Customs Act, 1962The substituted mandatory deposit regime applied because the appeal was not pending before its commencement. (¶¶ 4, 6, 8-11)
Held
- The former provision required deposit of the disputed duty, interest or penalty, subject to a discretion to dispense with deposit on undue-hardship grounds. The substituted provision prescribed reduced percentage deposits without that appellate waiver discretion. (¶¶ 4, 6, 8)
- The saving for pending appeals and stay applications did not assist the appellant: the penalty order was made in 2015 and the appeal was filed in 2017. The alleged incident in 2013 did not bring the appeal within that saving. (¶ 8-10)
- The appellant could not claim the reduced deposit under the substituted provision while also invoking the waiver discretion under the earlier provision. (¶ 9-10)
- The appeal was dismissed subject to an additional two months being allowed for compliance with Section 129E. There was no order as to costs, and pending applications were disposed of. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed, subject to two additional months to comply with Section 129E; no order as to costs. Pending applications disposed of.