9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 444 - AT - CustomsStay Petition - Waiver of pre-deposit Imposition of Penalty - Section 114(1) and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - The report of Chief Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Mumbai, specifically indicates that consignment which has been declared by the appellant as being basmati rice, needs to be checked as indicated in notification of DGFT authorities - The issue may be covered by the judgment of Tribunal in the case of GLOBAL AGRO IMPEX Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NOIDA 2013 (9) TMI 851 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Accordingly, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 114(1) and Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Sections 114(1) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was imposed due to the alleged export of non-basmati rice by the appellant. The appellant's consultant referred to a test report from the Chief Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Mumbai, confirming compliance with specifications in relevant notifications issued by DGFT authorities. Additionally, reliance was placed on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Global Agro Impex - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 717 (Tri.-Del.). Upon review of the records and submissions by the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal noted that the Chief Chemist's report highlighted the need to verify the consignment declared as basmati rice against DGFT notifications. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments put forth by the appellant's counsel and referenced the judgment in the case of M/s. Global Agro Impex. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had established a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The application for waiver was granted, and recovery of the penalty amount was stayed pending the appeal's disposal. Further examination of the records revealed that the penalty amount fell within the jurisdiction of a Single Member Bench. Therefore, the Registry was instructed to list the matter before the Single Member Bench for appropriate disposal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in court, affirming the grant of the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal resolution.
|
