2018 (12) TMI 1434 - HC - Customs

Non-compliance with pre-deposit - smuggling of Gold - petitioner s explanation was that he merely acted as a courier and was not the owner of the goods - Held that - To this Court, it appears that the petitioner is a man of limited means. It is not clear whether any prosecution has been launched against the petitioner. In these circumstances, in view of the material on record which suggests that the petitioner has very limited means to deposit any amounts, this Court is of the opinion that the relief is warranted. The requirement of pre-depositing of any amount is hereby directed to be waived, however, the petitioner shall furnish a bond and also provide reasonable security, having regard to the list of immovable properties produced before the Court - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's grievance regarding CESTAT's order on pre-deposit condition.
2. Petitioner's explanation as a courier and not the owner of the goods.
3. CESTAT's denial of waiver for pre-deposit.
4. Petitioner's financial constraints and submission of bank statement.
5. Respondent's argument on petitioner's assets disclosure.
6. Court's observation on petitioner's limited means.
7. Direction to waive pre-deposit condition with bond and security.
8. Revival of petitioner's appeal for CESTAT's hearing.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the petitioner's grievance against the order of the CESTAT, which refused to dispense with the pre-deposit condition of a substantial penalty imposed for allegedly smuggling gold. The petitioner claimed to have acted as a courier and not the owner of the goods, but the adjudicating authority found him in conscious possession of the confiscated quantities, leading to the penalty imposition.

The CESTAT, to which the petitioner had appealed for waiver of the pre-deposit condition, determined that the case's circumstances did not merit such relief. The petitioner, in response, provided his bank statement and other documents to demonstrate his inability to make a significant deposit, a requirement for appeal hearings. The respondent's counsel alleged non-disclosure of the petitioner's father's assets.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's limited financial means and the absence of any prosecution against him. Considering the evidence indicating his financial constraints, the Court deemed it appropriate to waive the pre-deposit requirement. However, the petitioner was instructed to furnish a bond and reasonable security based on the list of immovable properties he presented. Consequently, the pre-deposit condition was waived, and the petitioner's appeal was ordered to be revived for CESTAT's further consideration after providing notice to the counsel.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the waiver of the pre-deposit condition with the provision of a bond and security, ensuring the revival of the appeal for a fresh hearing before the CESTAT.