2013 (11) TMI 394 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114(i) and 114AA - confiscation of an export consignment which was declared in the relevant shipping bill as Bentonite powder but eventually found to be Muriate of Potash - Held that - in the case pertaining to 125 MTs of the offending goods, the original authority dropped the proposal for penalty under Section 114AA of the Act, which was not reviewed by the Department. It further appears that the facts of the case of 125 MTs and those of the case of 100 MTs of identical goods are similar. Therefore, prima facie, no direction for predeposit of any amount towards penalty under Section 114AA of the Act is warranted - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in relation to penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act.
2. Reduction of penalty amount by the Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs in the case of 125 MTs of Muriate of Potash.
3. Similarity in facts between the cases of 125 MTs and 100 MTs of the offending goods.
4. Reckoning of surplus predeposit amount towards the present appeal.
5. Direction for further deposit by the appellant within six weeks.
6. Pending appeal against the penalty of Rs.3 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery for penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act in connection with the confiscation of an export consignment declared as Bentonite powder but found to be Muriate of Potash. The penalties were imposed by the Commissioner, with one penalty reduced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. In the case of 125 MTs of Muriate of Potash, the penalty was initially Rs.10 lakhs, reduced to Rs.3 lakhs by the Commissioner (Appeals). An excess amount of Rs.2 lakhs predeposited by the appellant remained with the Department. The original authority dropped the proposal for penalty under Section 114AA, which was not reviewed by the Department.

3. The Tribunal noted the similarity in facts between the cases of 125 MTs and 100 MTs of Muriate of Potash. It was observed that no predeposit towards penalty under Section 114AA was warranted, as the debatable penalty was under Section 114(i) amounting to Rs.25 lakhs. The Tribunal considered the parallel proceedings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in reaching its decision.

4. The Tribunal ordered the surplus amount of Rs.2 lakhs to be reckoned towards predeposit in the present appeal and directed the appellant to deposit a further Rs.1 lakh within six weeks. Compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar by a specified date.

5. An appeal against the penalty of Rs.3 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was mentioned to be pending. The Tribunal instructed that particulars of this appeal be furnished by the appellant and both appeals would be heard together in due course.

6. The judgment concluded by stating the pronouncement and dictation in open Court, outlining the specific actions required for compliance and reporting, ensuring waiver and stay of the balance penalties subject to due compliance.