2015 (12) TMI 473 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - whether the IEC Code No. of M/s. Vinayak Impex was forged and used without their knowledge by some other persons or not - Held that - there are statements of the co-notices recorded by the DRI for M/s. Arup Nag and Shri Robin Saha, partners of M/s. Vinayak Impex were key players acting on behalf of Sri Supriya Chowdhury and Sri Soni Bhadra. Details of the role played by M/s. Vinayak Impex can only be gone into at the time of final hearing of the case. Prima facie, the appellant M/s. Vinayak Impex has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.
2. Allegations of forging and using the IEC Code of another entity without knowledge.
3. Role of the partners of the appellant in the importation process.
4. Prima facie case for waiver of penalty.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved a stay application filed by the appellant against an Order-in-Original imposing a penalty of Rs. 25.00 Lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, represented by Ld. Advocate Sri Anjan Dasgupta, argued that they had no knowledge of the imports made using the IEC Code of M/s. Vinayak Impex, attributing it to the actions of unscrupulous individuals. On the contrary, Shri S.P. Pal, the Appraiser (A.R.), contended that the partners of the appellant were key players in the importation process, emphasizing their non-cooperation with the authorities.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal focused on the central issue of whether the IEC Code of M/s. Vinayak Impex was forged and utilized without their consent. The statements of co-notices indicated the involvement of the partners of M/s. Vinayak Impex in acting on behalf of other individuals. The Tribunal noted that the details of M/s. Vinayak Impex's role would be further explored during the final hearing. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.00 Lakh within eight weeks and stay the recovery of the remaining penalty amount pending the appeal's disposal. The appellant was directed to report compliance by a specified date to the Registry.