2015 (12) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Modification of stay order - Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - Tribunal directed the pre-deposit after considering their role played in respect of forging of the documents for export of non-Basmati rice. The applicants submitted that the cross examination of the main person (exporter) was not granted. We find that this issue would be considered at the time of appeal hearing. The applicants also submitted that they have filed salary certificates and bank pass books with their applications. In our view, the case relates to forging of the documents in export of the restricted items and the money would definitely not shown in their bank passbooks or salary certificates. So, the evidence placed by the applicants would not suffice to their financial hardships. - No reason for modification of the stay order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Stay order modification based on pre-deposit amount, financial hardships of appellants, relevance of submitted evidence for financial hardships, applicability of previous court decisions.

Analysis:
1. Stay Order Modification: The Tribunal directed the applicants to pre-deposit penalties based on their roles in forging documents for exporting restricted items. The applicants requested modification, citing financial constraints and referring to a court decision. The Tribunal found that the pre-deposit amounts were justified, considering the evidence of their involvement in the forgery.

2. Financial Hardships: The applicants pleaded financial difficulties, submitting salary certificates and bank passbooks. However, the Tribunal noted that the nature of the case involved document forgery for restricted items, where financial evidence might not be conclusive. The Tribunal extended the compliance period but did not find sufficient reason to modify the stay order based on financial hardships alone.

3. Relevance of Evidence: The Tribunal considered the evidence submitted by the applicants, including salary certificates and bank passbooks, insufficient to prove financial hardships in a case involving document forgery for exporting restricted items. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence provided did not align with the nature of the case, leading to the decision not to modify the stay order.

4. Applicability of Previous Court Decisions: The applicants relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in a similar case involving Customs Officers. However, the Tribunal clarified that the cited decision was not directly applicable to the current case, as it pertained to different circumstances and parties. The Tribunal upheld its decision based on the specific facts and legal considerations of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal denied the modification of the stay order, considering the applicants' financial hardships in light of the nature of the case involving document forgery for exporting restricted items. The Tribunal extended the compliance period but emphasized the insufficiency of the evidence provided to support the requested modification. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the inapplicability of previous court decisions cited by the applicants.