2016 (5) TMI 651 - AT - Customs

Stay of recovery of redemption fine - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine - Seizure of imported yacht - Mis-declaration - Held that - the Tribunal has no power to entertain any stay petition against impugned order. The provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, as applicable in this case specifically say so. In Section 129E ibid, there is no provision for filing any application for stay of the impugned order or for waiver of pre-deposit of any amount. If the importer complies with the provisions as reproduced here-in-above there is no requirement of filing any applications for any reason. In the absence of any statutory provision this miscellaneous application cannot be entertained. Secondly, it is found that the provisions of erstwhile Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 had a proviso for filing an application for waiver of any amount. Exercising these powers, Tribunal used to grant waiver or stay of the impugned order, even in respect of the redemption fine imposed. By invoking inherent powers of the Tribunal orders were passed for staying operation in respect of redemption fine. As there are no provisions, we do not find any merits in the miscellaneous application. - Decided against the applicant

Summary

Issues involved:
Stay of operation of the impugned order in respect of the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The case involved a miscellaneous application filed by the applicant seeking a stay of the operation of the impugned order regarding a redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority. The applicant had imported a yacht and filed a bill of entry as "AZIMUT 68," which led to Customs authorities seizing the yacht due to mis-declaration of description and value. A show-cause notice was issued, and after due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, interest, penalties, and confiscated the yacht with an option for redemption on payment of a redemption fine. The applicant appealed the decision by depositing an amount equivalent to 7.5% of the Customs duty as per Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

The applicant's counsel argued for the application to be entertained and the operation of the impugned order related to the redemption fine to be stayed to prevent coercive action by the department. The counsel cited inherent powers of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules and previous cases where such powers were exercised to grant stays, including M/s. Gammon India Ltd. v. CC 2013 (9) TMI 622 - CESTAT Mumbai. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found the application lacking merit for several reasons.

Firstly, the Tribunal determined that it had no power to entertain a stay petition against the impugned order as per the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The section mandated the deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal, and there was no provision for filing an application for stay or waiver of pre-deposit amount. Compliance with the deposit requirements negated the need for any additional applications. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the previous cases cited by the counsel were under the erstwhile Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, which allowed for waiver or stay of the impugned order, including redemption fines. However, the current scenario lacked such provisions, making the miscellaneous application unenforceable.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, citing the absence of statutory provisions to entertain it. The decision highlighted the limitations imposed by Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, and the lack of grounds for granting a stay in this case due to the changed legal framework.