2003 (11) TMI 419 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for licensed CHA.
2. Allegation against the appellant for not verifying the bona fide of a person for Customs clearance work.
3. Involvement of the appellant in the illegal act of attempting to import auto parts.
4. Liability of penalty on another individual for actively abetting the illegal act.
5. Consideration of evidence and implications in the case.
6. Decision on stay application and waiver of penalty.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the requirement of pre-depositing a penalty amount under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act by a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), specifically focusing on the case of the appellant Shri Arokiaraj. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs for allegedly failing to verify the bona fide of a person approaching him for Customs clearance work.

2. The allegation against the appellant was related to his failure to verify the bona fide of an individual, Shri Kasirajan, involved in attempting to import auto parts valued at a significant amount. The Customs authorities accused the appellant of not fulfilling his duty as a licensed CHA in this regard.

3. The case involved the importation of auto parts under certain export promotion schemes, subsequent re-importation, and the alleged involvement of the appellant in the process. However, the appellant's counsel argued that there was no concrete evidence implicating the appellant in dealing with the imported goods, as Shri Kasirajan had not been apprehended, and no statements were recorded to directly implicate the appellant.

4. The judgment also addressed the liability of another individual, Shri Durai Srinivasan, for actively abetting Shri Kasirajan in the illegal act. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that since Shri Srinivasan played an instrumental role in the illegal act, he should be held liable for the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted the lack of penalty imposed on Shri Kasirajan, the absence of evidence implicating the appellant, and the failure to produce any documents to clear the goods. The Tribunal found that the appellants had made a strong case, citing a precedent from the Apex Court, and granted a stay application and waiver of the penalty.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the stay application and waiver, deciding that the appeal would come up for a Single Member Bench as it was a matter suitable for a Single Member Bench. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence, implications, and legal precedents in determining the outcome of the case.