2012 (11) TMI 783 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit of penalties - Custom House Agents (CHA) penalised for non declaration of material facts regarding the goods which were sought to be exported by M/s. Goralal Arya Impex Pvt. Limited. - Held that - As appellant did not appear before the adjudicating authority nor filed reply to show cause notice given to him, thus in order to ensure that appellant appears before the adjudicating authority and co-operates is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within eight weeks from today and report compliance. Appellants/applicants undertakes to file reply of show cause notice within six weeks from today.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal
2. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under Customs Act, 1962
3. Non-declaration of material facts by Custom House Agents
4. Failure to appear before the adjudicating authority
5. Requirement of deposit for ensuring cooperation in adjudicating proceedings

Analysis:

1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The judgment addresses an application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing an appeal. The tribunal, considering the delay as marginal, condones the delay and directs the registry to accept the stay petitions and appeals.

2. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under Customs Act, 1962:
The stay petitions are filed seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal examines the case of the main applicant, a Custom House Agent penalized for non-declaration of material facts related to exported goods. The second applicant, a manager, is also involved. The tribunal refrains from delving into the case's merits due to the appellant's non-appearance and failure to respond to the show cause notice. To ensure cooperation, the tribunal directs the deposit of a specified amount by a certain date.

3. Non-declaration of material facts by Custom House Agents:
The main applicant, a Custom House Agent, is penalized for failing to declare material facts regarding exported goods. The tribunal notes the admission by the manager that he was aware of the issue with the goods. The tribunal emphasizes the importance of cooperation and compliance in adjudicating proceedings.

4. Failure to appear before the adjudicating authority:
The appellant's failure to appear before the adjudicating authority and respond to the show cause notice is highlighted. This lack of participation is viewed as careless. The tribunal stresses the necessity of engaging in the adjudicating process and complying with procedural requirements.

5. Requirement of deposit for ensuring cooperation in adjudicating proceedings:
In order to ensure the appellant's participation and cooperation in the adjudicating proceedings, a specific amount is directed to be deposited within a stipulated timeframe. Compliance with this deposit requirement is linked to the setting aside of the impugned order and the remand of the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

The judgment concludes with the disposal of both appeals based on the outlined directives and requirements for compliance and cooperation in the adjudicating process.