2013 (10) TMI 411 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of value Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - They had in the Bill of Entry filed indicated the value of the goods under importation wrongly, they had also enclosed the high seas sale agreement and the invoices which indicated a higher value - there was no intention on the part of the appellant herein to mis-declare the value or to evade any Customs duty - Therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellant is not warranted. The decision in the case of S.K.Colombowala s Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI is still pending before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay, it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the said case, before taking a final decision in the matter - It will also be appropriate, at this stage, to grant waiver from pre-deposit of penalty adjudged against the appellant - waiver from pre-deposit of penalty granted against the appellant and stay recovery during the pendency of the appeal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalty on misdeclaration of value in import of machinery. Request for waiver of penalty and stay application.

Analysis:
1. The appeal and stay application were filed against the order-in-original imposing a penalty of Rs.35,327 on the appellant for being party to the misdeclaration of value in the import of machinery from a high seas seller.

2. The appellant contended that although the value in the Bill of Entry was incorrect, they had enclosed the high seas sale agreement and invoices showing a higher value, indicating no intention to mis-declare or evade Customs duty. The appellant cited the Settlement Commission's decision reducing penalties for other co-appellants involved in the case.

3. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision where penalties imposed on a Clearing House Agent (CHA) were set aside due to co-noticees obtaining penalty waivers from the Settlement Commission, arguing for a similar outcome in this case.

4. The Revenue's representative opposed, mentioning an appeal against a similar Tribunal decision pending before the High Court, indicating the matter's lack of finality and requesting to uphold the impugned order.

5. The judge considered both parties' arguments and noted the pending decision in the similar case before the High Court. As a result, the judge decided to await the High Court's decision before making a final determination. The judge granted a waiver from pre-deposit of the penalty and stayed the recovery of the penalty during the appeal's pendency.

6. The judge directed the registry to list the appeal for further proceedings once the High Court's decision in the related case is announced, ensuring the case's progression based on the High Court's ruling.