CESTAT Ahmedabad: Stay Petition for Penalty Waiver on Illegal Peacock Feather Export

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed a stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the illegal export of Peacock Feathers. The Tribunal acknowledged a violation of natural justice during adjudication proceedings but noted the appellant's lack of active pursuit for a personal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within eight weeks and comply with the adjudicating authority. Failure to comply would allow the Commissioner to proceed based on available records. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 due to illegal export of Peacock Feathers, Violation of principles of natural justice during adjudication proceedings.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad dealt with a stay petition filed by the appellant seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed for attempting to illegally export prohibited goods, specifically Peacock Feathers, under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted the appellant's claim of violation of principles of natural justice during the adjudication proceedings. The appellant argued that they were not heard by the adjudicating authority and had requested a personal hearing, which was not granted. The departmental representative contended that the appellant's behavior indicated a lack of interest in the proceedings, given that a notice of hearing had been returned unclaimed. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had indeed requested a personal hearing in their interim reply and had followed up with reminders to the Customs Commissioner's office, indicating a desire for a fair hearing. However, the order in original did not clarify if further attempts were made to serve the notice. The Tribunal acknowledged a violation of natural justice but also noted the appellant's failure to actively pursue the need for a personal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within eight weeks and report compliance to the adjudicating authority. Upon compliance, the Commissioner was instructed to hear the appellant and make a decision based on merits and principles of natural justice. It was emphasized that failure to comply would empower the Commissioner to proceed based on available records. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

---