2013 (10) TMI 1201 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of Goods Undervaluation of goods - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The adjudication based on the materials recovered from a different importer and used against appellant - Present appellant has not suppressed the import value and there was no mis-declaration - Perused the gravity of the order as to the untruthful disclosure which made appellant s application dismissed before settlement Commission - Invoices of the import resulted with undervaluation from the incriminating document recovered in the course of the proceeding - Keeping in view the financial difficulty expressed as well as the appropriation and encashment of Bank Guarantee stated, the appellant is directed to deposit the amount in two equal installments Upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjudication based on materials from a different importer.
2. Allegations of undervaluation and mis-declaration.
3. Financial difficulties faced by the appellant.
4. Rejection of application by Settlement Commission.
5. Requirement of pre-deposit for stay applications.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised concerns about adjudication based on materials from a different importer being used against them. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of import value or mis-declaration on their part. Financial difficulties were highlighted, emphasizing that the demand realization would cause hardship, especially considering the appropriation and encashment of a bank guarantee.

2. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to present a clean case before the Settlement Commission, leading to the rejection of their application. It was argued that any leniency in the pre-deposit stage would prejudice the Revenue. The gravity of the situation was noted, with references to untruthful disclosures and undervaluation based on recovered incriminating documents.

3. The Tribunal examined the details provided in the impugned order, particularly focusing on the evidence suggesting undervaluation by the appellant. Considering the financial difficulties expressed and the actions taken regarding the bank guarantee, specific directions were issued for the appellant to make deposits in installments to ensure compliance.

4. For one of the stay applications, the appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount within a given timeframe, with a deadline set for compliance. Failure to adhere to the deposit schedule would result in the vacation of the order. The appellant was instructed to provide proof of deposit to the adjudicating authority promptly.

5. Another appellant involved in a separate stay application was also directed to make a deposit within a specified period, with compliance required by a set date. The seriousness of the matter was reiterated, emphasizing the need for timely action to meet the deposit requirements outlined by the Tribunal.