2013 (11) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - seizure of Indian currencies from the baggages about to be exported - Held that - he stated that he was only a carrier of the currency which was said to have been handed over to him by one Mr. Hussain alias Mohammed Hussain Pote. The appellant was to have delivered the currency to another person, one Mr. Raees in Dubai. - The currency stands absolutely confiscated in terms of Section 113 of the Act - prima facie case for the appellant against the penalty. There is no evidence of financial hardships forthcoming. Nevertheless, we are not asking for full pre-deposit. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application seeking waiver of a penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
2. Seizure of Indian currencies from the appellant's baggage at Bangalore airport.
3. Allegation of being a carrier of the currency for delivery to another person in Dubai.
4. Imposition of penalty by the Commissioner after adjudication.
5. Lack of prima facie case against the penalty.
6. Direction for pre-deposit of a specific amount by the appellant.
7. Waiver and stay of the penalty subject to pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay of a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs imposed on him by the Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Despite previous adjournments and lack of representation from the appellant, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the stay application. The records indicated that Indian currencies amounting to Rs.76.4 lakhs were seized from the appellant's checked-in baggage at Bangalore airport. The appellant claimed to be a carrier of the currency, allegedly handed over to him by another individual for delivery to Dubai. The Commissioner imposed the penalty after investigations and adjudication, along with penalties on two other individuals involved. The Tribunal, after reviewing the grounds of appeal and submissions from the Commissioner, did not find a prima facie case against the penalty. Despite this, the appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs.1,00,000 within six weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar. The waiver and stay of the remaining penalty amount were subject to this pre-deposit condition.

This judgment highlights the legal process involving penalties under the Customs Act, specifically in cases of currency seizure and alleged smuggling activities. The Tribunal's decision to require a pre-deposit from the appellant showcases a balance between ensuring compliance with penalties and providing some relief by allowing a partial deposit. The lack of evidence of financial hardships and the absence of a strong case for the appellant against the penalty were crucial factors in the Tribunal's decision-making process. Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements in matters of customs enforcement and penalties.