9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1312 - AT - CustomsWaive of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 112(a) and 112(b) - mis-declaration of the imported goods - mis-declaration of the importd goods declared as suit cases, which were later found to comprise of different types of goods, namely, mens wear, spectacle frame, mobile battery, T-Shirt etc. - Held that - Commissioner analyzing the evidences brought on record against the applicant recorded a detailed finding at para 34.1 to 34.3 in Appeal No.70452 and at para 44.1 to 44.3 in Appeal No.70453 in imposing penalty. - At this stage, we do not find that the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver. Considering the financial hardship expressed on behalf of the applicant by the ld.Adv., it is appropriate at this stage, to direct the applicant to deposit ₹ 1.50 Lakhs in both the appeals - Partial stay granted.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962.
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved two applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalties of &8377; 10.00 Lakhs each, imposed under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was found to be involved in the mis-declaration of imported goods initially declared as suitcases but later discovered to consist of various items like menswear, spectacle frames, mobile batteries, and T-shirts. The Commissioner, after analyzing the evidence, imposed penalties as per detailed findings in Appeal No.70452 and Appeal No.70453. The Tribunal noted that the findings did not show any apparent error and were reasoned. Although the appellant contended against the order, the Tribunal found no prima facie case for total waiver at that stage. Acknowledging the financial hardship expressed by the appellant's counsel, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit &8377; 1.50 Lakhs in both appeals within eight weeks. Upon compliance, the balance dues in both appeals would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Failure to make the deposit would lead to the dismissal of both appeals without further notice. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in an open court by Dr. D.M. Misra.
|
