2013 (9) TMI 178 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit of penalty u/s 112(b) - the assessee had intimated the police by lodging an FIR regarding loss of advance licenses all these issues needs to be gone into detail the assessee was not serious in prosecuting the stay petition before the Bench and seeking adjournments on various grounds the issue needs to be gone into detail which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal - Held that - court ordered the main assessee should be directed to deposit some amount for hearing and disposing the appeal on such submission stay petition was allowed decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, penalty under Customs Act, 1962, condonation of delay, use of advance licenses, liability for duty, authority for filing bills of entry, DRI authorities issuing show cause notice, compliance with pre-deposit orders, penalty imposition on another party.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves a stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 30,95,975 against a company and an individual, along with interest and penalty. Additionally, in a connected appeal, another individual was penalized Rs. 10 Lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Tribunal noted that in the case of the individual penalized under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, no one appeared during the hearing for the stay petition. Despite this, the delay in the application was condoned, and the appeal was restored by the bench. This matter was transferred to the Division Bench due to the listing of connected appeals.

3. The primary issue in the case of the company and individual seeking the waiver of pre-deposit pertains to the use of quantity-based advance licenses. The company had procured such licenses but reported them lost, subsequently used by another party for clearing consignments. The company argued that duty cannot be imposed as they had reported the loss and were not the importer.

4. The departmental representative contended that if the licenses were produced and later canceled by the DGFT, duty liability would arise for the goods cleared under those licenses.

5. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that while the company had reported the loss of licenses to the police, the licenses were used for clearance, and bills of entry were filed in the company's name. The Tribunal directed the company to pre-deposit Rs. 10,00,000 within twelve weeks for the appeal's disposal, allowing waiver of pre-deposit for the balance amount.

6. Regarding the penalty imposed on the other individual, the Tribunal observed a lack of seriousness in prosecuting the stay petition and multiple adjournment requests. The Tribunal directed the individual to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within twelve weeks, with compliance to be reported before the Deputy Registrar for further orders, staying the recovery of the penalty amount until the appeal's disposal.