2014 (2) TMI 928 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Clearance of goods without payment of duty and filing bills of entry - Mis declaration of goods - Held that - prima facie the first three appellants have clearly played active roles in smuggling the cargo without payment of duty from the Air Cargo Complex. Shri P. Ganesh, prima facie is the owner of the goods. Shri M. Ramesh was an employee of a cargo holder of a CHA, had access to the customs area and actively participated in the smuggling. Shri A.Saravanan was aware of the smuggling and he provided information to Shri M. Ramesh for identifying the cargo. All the three played major roles in the manner suggested above. In the case of International Airport Authority, no awareness at an organization level is prima facie brought out - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions in respect of four appeals filed by different persons - smuggling of goods without payment of duty - roles of individuals involved - liability of Airport Authority of India.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to stay petitions for four appeals related to smuggling goods without paying customs duty. The first applicant sent a consignment from Singapore to Chennai Airport, falsely declared as 'Auto spare parts' but actually containing electronic goods. The second applicant, a Customs House Agent, played an active role in clearing the goods for removal without duty payment. The third applicant provided information for the smuggling operation. The fourth applicant, Airport Authority of India, was the custodian of the goods. The arguments presented by both sides focused on the roles of the individuals involved in the smuggling operation.

The Ld. Counsel for the second applicant claimed he had no active role in the smuggling, while the third applicant denied ownership of the goods and any involvement in the smuggling. The Airport Authority of India stated they were unaware of the malpractice and had cooperated with the investigation. The Revenue contended that all three main appellants conspired to defraud the Revenue by smuggling goods without paying duty, citing past instances of similar activities.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the first three appellants had actively participated in the smuggling operation. The first appellant was deemed the owner of the goods, the second appellant had facilitated the smuggling, and the third appellant had provided information for the illegal activity. The Tribunal directed the appellants to make pre-deposits for admission of their appeals based on their roles in the smuggling operation. The pre-deposit amounts were specified for each appellant, with the requirement waived for the Airport Authority of India. The pre-deposits were to be made within eight weeks, and compliance was to be reported by a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the active roles of the appellants in smuggling goods without paying customs duty, with each appellant being held liable based on their involvement in the illegal activity. The decision to require pre-deposits for admission of appeals reflects the seriousness of the offense and the need for accountability.