2013 (8) TMI 798 - AT - Customs

Mis declaration of goods penalty u/s 112 redemption of fine - importer filed appeal for setting aside the penalty and redemption fine Held that - applicants had not made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of the entire amount of penalty - there was no dispute that the goods are mis-declared - the contention that it was not a case of willful mis declaration which could only be determined after hearing the appeal at length. Stay application waiver of pre deposit - court ordered 10% amount of penalty to be submitted with the department on such submission the stay would be granted decided in favour of assessee with conditions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as "ceramic ware dinner set" when they were actually "opal glassware dinner set."
2. Imposition of anti-dumping duty, fine, and penalties on the importer and director of the importing company.
3. Appeal against penalties and redemption fine by the importer.
4. Appeal for the imposition of penalty on the director of the importing company.

Analysis:
The case involved the misdeclaration of imported goods by M/s. YK Enterprises as "ceramic ware dinner set" when they were actually "opal glassware dinner set," leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, penalties were imposed on the importer and the director of the company. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the penalties, setting aside the penalty on the director and reducing the penalty on the importer. The order also included the re-export of the goods.

The importer filed an appeal to set aside the penalties and redemption fine, while the revenue filed an appeal for the imposition of a penalty on the director. During the hearing, it was acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the misdeclaration of goods. The importer argued that it was not a case of willful misdeclaration, which would be determined during the appeal process. As the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for waiving the predeposit of the penalty amount, they were directed to deposit a specific sum within a given timeframe. Upon compliance with this directive, the predeposit of the remaining penalty amount was waived, and recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the misdeclaration of goods was established, and the appeal process would determine the nature of the misdeclaration. The decision to waive the predeposit was contingent on the compliance with the directed deposit within the specified timeframe. The judgment addressed the penalties imposed on the importer and the director, ensuring a fair process for appeal and resolution of the issues raised.