2013 (11) TMI 443 - AT - Customs

Stay application - Penalty u/s 112(b) - Diversion of goods - Held that - appellant has indicated that he was aware of diversion of 500 MT of crude palm oil, to go to Delhi - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of penalty under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 for engaging in High Sea Sale and diversion of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Stay Petition seeking waiver of a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty based on the appellant's involvement in procuring goods on High Sea Sale basis and diverting them to a person in Delhi instead of the actual user. The appellant contests this penalty, arguing that there was no knowledge that the goods were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, notes that the issue requires detailed scrutiny due to the appellant's claim of awareness regarding the diversion of crude palm oil to Delhi. Consequently, the Tribunal directs the appellant to deposit Rs.1 lakh within eight weeks and report compliance. Upon verification of compliance, further orders will be issued, and recovery of the balance amount is stayed until the appeal is disposed of. The Tribunal emphasizes the debatable and arguable nature of the issue, necessitating a conditional approach to the appellant's case.

This judgment underscores the importance of thoroughly examining the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of customs regulations. The Tribunal's decision to require a partial deposit from the appellant reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the appeal process proceeds while addressing the penalty issue. By allowing the waiver of the balance amounts upon compliance with the initial deposit, the Tribunal maintains fairness and procedural adherence in handling the penalty imposition under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The directive for compliance reporting and subsequent orders demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to a structured and transparent resolution process. Overall, the judgment showcases a nuanced consideration of the legal and factual aspects involved in the appellant's case, highlighting the need for detailed analysis and procedural clarity in matters concerning penalties and waivers in customs law.