2013 (10) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal grants waiver for alleged mislabeled Basmati Rice export, citing compliance with regulations

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged export of ... Benefit of Notification No. 57/2009-2012 – Confiscation of Goods u/s 113 – Redemption of Goods – Penalty u/s 114 – and 114AA of Customs Act – Waiver of Pre-Deposit - Revenue was of the view that the price submitted for export was non-Basmati Rice which was prohibited for export during the relevant time - Held that:- Following GLOBAL AGRO IMPEX Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NOIDA [2013 (9) TMI 851 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] u/s 129E of Customs Act there was no requirement of pre-deposit of redemption fine - The detained goods were sufficient security for realising the dues from the order and therefore there was a considerable merit in the argument of the appellants -pre-deposit of penalty for hearing the appeal was waived. - stay granted. Issues:- Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Customs Act, 1962 for alleged export of non-Basmati Rice as Basmati Rice.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging an attempt to export non-Basmati Rice as Basmati Rice.2. The appellant's counsel referred to a previous decision where unconditional stay was granted, arguing for similar treatment based on precedent. However, the departmental representative contended that the consignment did not meet the criteria for Basmati Rice, leading to the penalty imposition by the adjudicating authority.3. The Tribunal disagreed with the department's position and the Commissioner's findings, citing specific notifications regarding the length of grain required for rice to be considered Basmati. The export consignment in question met this specification, indicating compliance with the relevant regulations.4. Considering the arguments and the compliance with the notification requirements, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties. Consequently, the application for waiver was allowed, and the recovery of the penalty amount was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.