2013 (10) TMI 673 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - No claim of goods - Held that - though the appellant has booked seized goods he has not disclosed the address of the person who had come to him with the goods for booking. The imported goods prima facie appear to be of smuggled origin and up till now, the same have not been claimed by anybody. In view of this, this is not a case for total waiver. The appellant are, therefore, directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000 towards penalty within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Stay application for waiver of penalty pending appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the recovery of 86 packets from a train, containing mobile phones, electronic items, and goods of foreign and Indian origin. The appellant admitted to booking these goods but claimed ignorance about their contents. The Commissioner Customs, Lucknow, ordered the confiscation of the seized goods valued at Rs. 72,73,960/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed an appeal challenging this order.

2. During the hearing of the stay application, the appellant's counsel argued that the penalty should not have been imposed as there was no evidence of the appellant's knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods. The appellant claimed to have a strong prima facie case in their favor and requested a waiver of the penalty pending the appeal. On the other hand, the departmental representative opposed the stay application, highlighting that the appellant did not disclose the full address of the person to whom the goods belonged, indicating involvement in smuggling activities.

3. After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the judge found that the appellant had not disclosed crucial information regarding the goods' ownership and origin. The imported goods appeared to be of smuggled origin, and no one had claimed them so far. As a result, the judge directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty within four weeks. Upon compliance with this directive, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount was waived for the appeal hearing, and the recovery of the penalty amount was stayed until the appeal's disposal.