1996 (3) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Deposit of duty and penalty by the appellants.
2. Allegations of diversion of goods and non-compliance with export obligations.
3. Defense of the Customs House Agent.
4. Admission of purchase by Mr. Devraj Behal and suppression of facts.
5. Prima facie evidence supporting the appellants and granting of stay against recovery.

Analysis:

1. The judgment required the appellants, including M/s. World Wide Traders, Shri M.A. Salam, Shri Sadiq Ahmed, and Mr. Mahendra C. Shrimankar, to deposit specific amounts towards duty and penalty. The defense argued that the export obligations were completed, and the closure of DEEC Pass Books in 1992-94 indicated compliance. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on statements without considering documentary evidence was challenged, seeking unconditional stay and waiver against pre-deposit.

2. The defense for M/s. World Wide Traders highlighted the completion of export obligations and questioned the credibility of statements by Mr. Devraj Behal and others. The argument emphasized the closure of DEEC Books and the presumption of compliance by the Customs Authority. The defense aimed to show that the evidence supported the appellants, warranting a stay against recovery and waiver against pre-deposit.

3. Regarding Shri Shrimankar, the Customs House Agent, the defense contended that he merely facilitated clearance and had no active role in the alleged diversion of goods. It was argued that any sale occurred after the goods were stored as per instructions, absolving him of direct involvement.

4. The JDR highlighted Mr. Devraj Behal's admission of purchasing goods and the alleged suppression of this fact during book closure. The JDR argued that such suppression warranted invoking the extended period for investigation. Additionally, the involvement of the Customs House Agent in diverting goods was suggested based on the circumstances of the case.

5. The tribunal considered the prima facie evidence, including government records confirming receipt of imported goods in Bangalore, and the closure of DEEC Books. This evidence, along with the lack of precedence given to Mr. Devraj Behal's statements over documentary proof, led to a decision in favor of the appellants. Consequently, an unconditional stay against recovery and waiver against pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts was granted to all appellants based on the prima facie case supporting their defense.