2013 (10) TMI 180 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act allegation that he was using an imported bike which could not have been established as legally imported into India. - Held that - Invoking Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the current appellant before the Tribunal seems to be incorrect - inasmuch as the appellant could not have had any knowledge that the vehicle which was used by him, was improperly imported - It was also on record that the said vehicle had the registration number of Karnataka - On this factual matrix, it cannot be said that the appellant had any knowledge as to the improper import of the said motorcycle / bike. - Stay Granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Stay on the operation of the impugned order

Analysis:

Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty:
The appellant filed applications seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of a penalty amount of Rs.50,000 imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority concluded that the appellant should be penalized under the said section due to the use of an imported bike whose legal importation into India was not established. However, upon review of the records, it was found that statements of the appellant indicated that the bike in question was provided to him by Mr. K. Manju for acting in a film, with the understanding that the bike could be used until the appellant's remuneration was settled. The adjudicating authority also confirmed this arrangement. Considering these facts, the Tribunal determined that invoking Section 112(b) against the appellant was incorrect. The appellant lacked knowledge regarding the improper import of the bike, especially since it bore a Karnataka registration number. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. Therefore, the applications for the waiver were allowed, and recovery of the penalty was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

Stay on Operation of Impugned Order:
In addition to the waiver of pre-deposit, the appellant also sought a stay on the operation of the impugned order. Given the findings related to the lack of knowledge on the part of the appellant regarding the improper import of the bike, and the grant of the waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to stay the recovery of the penalty amount until the appeal was finally disposed of. This decision was made to prevent any undue hardship or prejudice to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, presided over by Shri. M.V. Ravindran, allowed the applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount and stayed the recovery thereof until the appeal was resolved. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the factual circumstances and the appellant's lack of knowledge in determining the appropriateness of imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.