1997 (1) TMI 299 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the Master of the Vessel.
2. Stay of operation of the impugned order and hearing the appeal without prior deposit of fine under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the owners of the vessel.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with applications for stay on payment of redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves two applications filed against a common order by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai. The first application is from the Master of the Vessel seeking dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The second application is from the owners of the vessel, requesting a stay of the impugned order and to hear the appeal without prior deposit of a fine under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The counsels for the applicants argued that the penalty on the Master of the Vessel was unjustified as it was based on inferential findings without concrete evidence. They cited a Bombay High Court judgment to support their case, stating that no penalty can be imposed on the master for not employing independent watchmen. However, the Tribunal found that a substantial quantity of contraband gold was recovered from accessible places on the vessel, indicating negligence on the part of the master. The Tribunal directed the Master to deposit a partial amount of the penalty for the appeal to be heard.

3. Regarding the owners of the vessel, it was contended that the redemption fine imposed on them was unjustified as they did not have culpable knowledge of the smuggled gold. The Departmental Representative argued that the vessel was used for smuggling gold due to lack of diligence by the master. The Tribunal found that the application from the owners did not have merit, as there was no requirement for prior deposit of redemption fine for hearing the appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the jurisdiction to deal with applications for stay on payment of redemption fine. Section 129E of the Customs Act deals with pre-payment of duty, penalty, and interest, but does not specifically mention redemption fine. However, the Tribunal held that it has the power to nullify or modify orders of the lower authority. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the power to grant stay of recovery of redemption fine is incidental to its authority to pass orders on appealed decisions.

5. In a separate order, another Member of the Tribunal agreed with the views expressed in the main judgment regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with applications for stay on payment of redemption fine. The Tribunal's power to grant stay of recovery of redemption fine was considered incidental to its authority to pass orders on appealed decisions.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of pre-deposit of penalty, stay of impugned order, and Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with redemption fine, as discussed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai.