2013 (3) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Waiver of Pre deposit - Seizure and Confiscation of cigarettes depart from Imphal to Kolkata via Agartala on the reasonable belief that the goods were of foreign origin - held that - appellant is not able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. - Pre deposit ordered equal to 25% of penalty. Regarding confiscation of hides and skins - held that - , on examination the goods were found swamp deer etc. which are included in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and trading of which is prohibited under the relevant provisions of the said Act read with definition of Prohibited Goods as per Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 - he has not been able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. - Pre deposit ordered equal to 25% of penalty.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Customs Act for seized goods; Allegations of smuggling and illegal procurement of goods; Burden of proof on department; Admissions of offense by certain individuals; Confiscation of prohibited goods under Wildlife Protection Act; Financial hardship claims for waiver of penalty; Pre-deposit requirements and compliance deadlines.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties ranging from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2,00,000 under the Customs Act. Customs officers seized a consignment containing various items, including cigarettes, shoes, lady's inner wear, and semi-tanned animal hides, with a total value of over Rs.30 lakhs, suspecting them to be of foreign origin. The goods were confiscated under relevant sections of the Customs Act, and penalties were imposed on the applicants.

The contentions raised by the applicants varied, with some claiming to be innocent consignees whose names were misused, while others admitted to working as brokers or employees acting in good faith. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden lies on the department to prove that seized goods were smuggled, which it failed to do in this case. Notably, the department did not produce sufficient evidence to support its allegations of smuggling or illegal procurement of goods.

Regarding the admissions of offense by certain individuals and the confiscation of prohibited goods under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Tribunal found that some applicants had not made a prima facie case for total waiver of penalties. While financial hardship claims were made, lack of evidence to support these claims led to the directive for a 25% pre-deposit of penalties imposed on them.

The judgment also outlined compliance requirements, directing the concerned individuals to pre-deposit the specified amounts within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeals without further notice. However, upon compliance, the remaining penalty amounts would be waived, and recovery thereof stayed during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of evidence and burden of proof in customs-related cases, while also highlighting the criteria for waiver of penalties and compliance deadlines to ensure due process and fairness in adjudication.