9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 225 - AT - CustomsWaiver of pre-deposit of penalty u/s 114 and 117 - penalty on steamer agent - Export of prohibited goods - Assessee had no knowledge of bad deeds of exporter - Held that - There is no finding to show that the applicants were aware of the fact regarding export of prohibited goods. The applicant only supplied a container at the request of M/s. J.A. Maritime. In these circumstances, prima facie the applicants have a strong case in their favour. Therefore, pre-deposit of the penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed - Matter remanded back - Stay granted.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Sections 114 and 117 of the Customs Act.
Analysis: The applicant filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,00,000 imposed under Sections 114 and 117 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the penalty for the appeal hearing, which the applicant failed to comply with, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The applicant contended that they were a steamer agent who supplied a container to M/s. J.A. Maritime, a freight forwarder, at their request. The container was later used for exporting prohibited goods. The applicant argued that there was no evidence to prove their awareness of the exporter's activities and relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the lower authority's findings that the applicant supplied the container without proper verification. The presiding judge, after reviewing the adjudication order, noted the absence of any evidence showing the applicant's awareness of the prohibited goods export. The judge found that the applicant merely supplied the container at the request of M/s. J.A. Maritime, indicating a lack of liability for the penalty. Consequently, the judge waived the pre-deposit of the penalty and stayed the recovery process, allowing the stay petition. Moreover, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the appeal on its merits, the judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with an opportunity for a hearing.
|
