1995 (2) TMI 211 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants partial waiver for appeal against Customs Act penalty

CL. JAIN WOOLLEN MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DELHI

CL. JAIN WOOLLEN MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DELHI - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 273 (Tribunal) Issues:Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 for hearing appeal against penalty imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act. Jurisdiction of Regional Bench, erroneous penalty imposition, non-service of show cause notice within statutory period, discrepancy in acrylic content, financial hardship plea.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a stay petition filed by M/s. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills seeking waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for their appeal against a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Initially, there was a question regarding whether the appeal should be heard by the Regional Bench or a Special Bench. However, it was clarified that the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Bench based on the nature of the appeal as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs.The petitioners contested the penalty imposition, arguing that the goods exported under the DEEC Scheme were alleged to contain less acrylic content than required. They claimed that the show cause notice was not served within the statutory period and challenged the test reports relied upon by the Additional Collector. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the petitioners had declared false information in their shipping Bills and that tests revealed the acrylic content was indeed less than 75%. The adjudicating authority upheld the penalty imposition based on these findings.After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted conflicting test reports regarding the acrylic content of the exported goods. The petitioners presented test reports contradicting the findings of the Additional Collector, which were not accepted due to procedural reasons. The Tribunal found that a detailed examination of the evidence is necessary during the appeal hearing to determine the accuracy of the acrylic content. Regarding the plea of financial hardship, the Tribunal observed that the petitioners failed to provide audited reports supporting their claim. They were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs within two months and give an undertaking for the balance amount of the penalty.In conclusion, the Tribunal granted a partial waiver of the pre-deposit for the appeal, subject to compliance with the specified conditions. Failure to comply would result in the vacation of the stay and necessitate the deposit of the entire penalty amount. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.