2014 (3) TMI 838 - AT - Customs

Tribunal waives pre-deposit for appeal, stays fines during process under Customs Act section 111(d).

Goyal Ispat Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export), Chennai

The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of penalty for appeal admission, considering the lack of intent to contravene the law in a technical violation of ... Stay application - Confiscation of goods - Penalty - Held that:- Prima facie, it appears that there was no intention to contravene any of the provisions of the law and the applicant had complied with the provisions to the best of their knowledge though there is a technical violation. The issue whether fine and penalty needs to be imposed in such circumstances can be examined at the time of appeal hearing. I consider it proper to waive the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal. It is so ordered. There shall be stay on collection of such dues arising from the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. Issues:1. Compliance with legal requirements for import certification.2. Confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.Compliance with legal requirements for import certification:The case involved the import of steel scrap accompanied by a Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate. The issue arose when the Revenue contended that the consignment lacked a specific certificate regarding arms and ammunition from a recognized agency at the port of export. The appellant argued that the agency issuing the certificate was recognized elsewhere, and the non-compliance was due to a recent change in legal requirements. The Tribunal acknowledged the technical violation but noted the lack of intent to contravene the law. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of penalty for appeal admission, emphasizing that the imposition of fines and penalties could be reconsidered during the appeal hearing.Confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:The goods were provisionally released but later confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the perceived non-compliance with the legal requirement regarding the certification of arms and ammunition. The appellant contended that the violation was unintentional and occurred during a transitional period of changing legal requirements. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the violation, found that there was no deliberate intent to contravene the law. As a result, the Tribunal decided to stay the collection of fines and penalties during the appeal process, indicating a willingness to reevaluate the need for such sanctions at a later stage.Imposition of redemption fine and penalty:The Revenue argued for the imposition of penalties due to the violation of the law prescribed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, the appellant maintained that the violation was not severe, given the circumstances of the changing legal requirements at the time of shipment. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments, found that while there was a technical violation, there was no clear intention to breach the law. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeal without the requirement of pre-deposit for penalties, indicating a willingness to reassess the need for fines and penalties during the appeal hearing.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding compliance with legal requirements, confiscation of goods, and the imposition of fines and penalties.