2013 (10) TMI 453 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - Penalty on CHA - Held that - penalty cannot be imposed both on partnership firm and the partner. The details of involvement of the partnership firm as CHA, can be examined at the time of disposal of appeal. At this stage, the offer made by the ld. Advocate for the applicants seems to be reasonable for hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, the applicant, M/s Gee Pee International, is directed to deposit 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) - stay granted partly. Decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (E. P.) Versus JUPITER EXPORTS 2007 (6) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY followed.

Summary

Issues: Waiver of predeposit of personal penalties imposed on partnership firm and partner under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Imposition of Penalties on Partnership Firm and Partner: The appeal involved seeking waiver of predeposit of personal penalties imposed on a partnership firm and its partner under the Customs Act, 1962. The advocate for the appellants referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commr. of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Exports, arguing that penalties cannot be imposed on both the partnership firm and the partner. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, contended that the penalties were rightly imposed on both entities. However, the Revenue could not present any judgment contrary to the one cited by the advocate.

2. Decision and Rationale: After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that, prima facie, in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Jupiter Exports case, penalties cannot be imposed on both the partnership firm and the partner. The Tribunal decided that the involvement of the partnership firm could be further assessed during the appeal process. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the partnership firm to deposit a specific amount within a designated period, with the balance of the dues adjudged on both the firm and the partner being waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals. This decision was based on the reasonableness of the offer made by the advocate for the applicants and the legal precedent cited.

3. Order and Compliance: The Tribunal ordered the partnership firm to deposit a specified amount within six weeks and report compliance on a particular date. Upon the deposit of this amount, the recovery of the remaining dues adjudged on both the partnership firm and the partner would be stayed during the appeal proceedings. The decision was pronounced in the open court, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal procedures.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents, and the specific directives issued for compliance by the partnership firm involved in the case.