2013 (10) TMI 677 - AT - Customs

Illegal export of Muriate of Potash in the name of Bentonite Powder - Waiver of penalty - Documents for export - Held that - Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 states that if a person causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, he shall be liable to a penalty. I find that Shri Anjanappa was involved in the documentation presented before the Customs Authorities wherein a false declaration has been made in material particular of the goods. Therefore, I hold that Shri Anjanappa is liable to be penalized under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - The detail evidences would be examined in analyzing the involvement of the applicant at the time of disposal of the appeal. In these circumstances, the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed. Accordingly, I direct the applicant to deposit Rs.25,000 within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit of the said amount, the balance amount of penalty is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of penalty under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the issue at hand was the application seeking waiver of a total penalty of Rs.1,50,000 imposed on the applicant for his involvement in assisting in the misdeclaration of goods for export. The Revenue contended that the applicant played a significant role in preparing documents for export, leading to misdeclaration of goods. The learned advocate for the applicant argued that the applicant merely prepared documents and was not involved in the actual export process, hence should not be penalized. The Commissioner had recorded findings under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the evidence available, indicating the applicant's involvement in the misdeclaration of goods.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had established the applicant's involvement in assisting in the misdeclaration of goods for export. The Commissioner's findings indicated that the applicant had prepared documents, including a letter for self-clearance of goods without the exporter's signature, and had received gratification for his role. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the applicant was deemed responsible for rendering the goods liable to confiscation. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the applicability of Section 114AA, stating that the applicant was involved in presenting false declarations regarding the goods to the Customs Authorities, thereby justifying the penalty imposed.

In light of the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a total waiver of the penalty imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs.25,000 within six weeks, with the balance of the penalty being waived and its recovery stayed during the appeal process. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with the order by a specified date, highlighting the seriousness of the matter and the consequences of non-compliance.