1933 (4) TMI 1 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalties.
2. Confiscation of goods.
3. Financial hardship of the applicants.
4. Admissibility of additional evidence.
5. Quantum of penalties and redemption fines.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Penalties:
The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs, Madras. The penalties varied significantly across different applicants, ranging from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 72,00,000. The applicants argued that the penalties and fines were exorbitant and lacked uniformity. They also contended that the authorities did not provide a basis for such high penalties and did not notify the applicants about the margin of profit considered for the penalties.

2. Confiscation of Goods:
The adjudicating authority found the importation of goods to be illegal and liable for confiscation. The applicants did not contest the liability of the goods for confiscation under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act but reserved the right to argue on the merits during the final hearing. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision in M/s. M.K. Fisheries v. Collector of Customs, which upheld the confiscation of similar goods, thereby establishing a precedent against the applicants.

3. Financial Hardship of the Applicants:
The applicants claimed financial hardship to justify the waiver of pre-deposit. However, the Tribunal found the financial statements provided by the applicants to be insufficient. The balance sheets did not detail the application of funds, sundry debtors, and creditors adequately. The Tribunal noted that the applicants had benefited from the sale of the goods released under High Court orders and had not provided a clear account of their financial transactions or assets.

4. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The Department filed a Miscellaneous Application to introduce additional evidence showing the sale prices of the goods in the Indian market, which indicated a higher margin of profit than claimed by the applicants. The Tribunal admitted these documents for the limited purpose of assessing the market conditions and the amounts the applicants could have realized from the sale of the goods. The applicants did not effectively counter the genuineness of these documents.

5. Quantum of Penalties and Redemption Fines:
The applicants argued that the penalties and fines were disproportionate to the margin of profit. The Tribunal observed that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the redemption fine could be up to the market value of the goods less the duty payable. The Tribunal found that the penalties were not excessive and were within legal limits. The evidence suggested that the market value of the goods was higher than the value considered by the adjudicating authority, justifying the penalties imposed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ordered the applicants to pre-deposit specified amounts towards penalties by June 30, 1993, failing which appropriate legal orders would be passed. The pre-deposit amounts varied for each applicant, reflecting the Tribunal's consideration of the individual circumstances and financial positions of the applicants. The Tribunal's decision balanced the need to secure government dues with the financial hardships claimed by the applicants.