2014 (12) TMI 1248 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty for aid and abetment in duty evasion - It is the case of the Revenue that most of the MOP available in India is imported into India for industrial use and the appellants aided and abetted in the export of such MOP after importation by mis-declaring the same as Feldspar Powder, Industrial Salt etc. - Held that - Looking to the extent of manipulations and scale of transactions, prima-facie, we do not find that all the appellants have made out a case for complete waiver of penalties and are required to be put to certain conditions. - all the appellants should deposit an amount equivalent to 1 % (One per cent) of the total penalties imposed upon each appellant under Section 114(i) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar by 04.02.2015. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications filed by the appellants for penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 for aiding and abetting in misdeclaration and export of Muriate of Potash (MOP).

Analysis:
The appellants filed stay applications to suspend the operation of the order imposing penalties for aiding in the misdeclaration and export of MOP. The penalties were imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962. The Revenue alleged that the appellants facilitated the export of MOP by misdeclaring it as other substances like Feldspar Powder and Industrial Salt. The advocates representing the appellants argued against the imposition of penalties, citing previous stay orders by the Bench on similar issues.

During the hearing, the advocates and Chartered Accountant for the appellants contended that no penalties should be levied on their clients. They referenced earlier stay orders issued by the Bench on the same matter. After reviewing the submissions, case records, and previous stay orders, the Bench noted that the adjudicating authority's order spanned 299 pages detailing each appellant's role in the penalties. The Bench observed similarities in names across appeals and previous stay orders. Considering the complexity of the case and the need for a thorough examination during the final hearing, the Bench decided that the adjudication order required in-depth analysis with the evidence presented by both parties.

The Bench acknowledged that some appellants had been granted complete waiver from payment in previous cases involving the same issue. However, due to the recurring appearance of certain names and the magnitude of manipulations and transactions, the Bench concluded that not all appellants qualified for complete penalty waiver. Therefore, the Bench directed all appellants to deposit an amount equivalent to 1% of the total penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 within eight weeks. Compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar by a specified date, and stay on recovery of the remaining amounts was granted pending the appeal's disposal.

In conclusion, the Bench's decision required the appellants to make partial deposits of penalties within a specified timeframe, based on the gravity of the allegations and evidence presented. The stay on recovery of the remaining amounts was contingent upon compliance with the deposit directive until the appeals were resolved.