Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Success Engg R.K. Export, More ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 9 February, 2004
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. These stay applications are being disposed of by this common order. Nobody appeared other than for M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons and Shri Sunil Choudhary for which Mr Mondal, the learned Consultant appears.
2. Heard Mr Mondal, the learned Consultant and Mr Bablani, the learned Jt CDR, and considered the materials on record and it is found:
(a) Since the other appellants have not cared to pursue the applications, in spite of the matter being adjourned- earlier to enable their advocates on record to bring the relationship--between the firms on record, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their stay applications. The stay applications of all applicants other than M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons and Shri Sunil Choudhary, are therefore required to be dismissed. However, to enable them to pre deposit the amounts as determined against them, a period of eight weeks is granted. The amounts should be deposited and balance thereof should be reported on 6.4.2004, These stay applications of appellants other than M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons and Shri Sunil Choudhary are disposed of in the above terms.
(b) As regards the stay applications of M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons and Shri Sunil Choudhary, it is found that M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons, is a CHA firm and Shri Sunil Choudhary is one of the partners who have been penalised in this case of Rs. 15.00 lakhs and Rs. 20.00 lakhs respectively. The learned consultant, who appeared for them, took us through various decisions and instructions in the Appraising Manual Instructions that there was nothing amiss in the CHA's act on behalf of the importers to have filed a Bill of Entry with the photocopies of the documents. This Appraising Manual Instructions at para 14 (9) provided that it was the duty of the scrutinising appraiser not to give orders for examination of the goods on such Bills of Entry filed along with photocopies of the invoices. The filing cannot be questioned. Therefore, we find that prima facie a good case has been made out by the learned consultant on behalf of these two appellants to consider waiver of pre deposit requirement and order the stay of recovery of the amounts of penalties determined on them. However, keeping in mind the submission of the learned Joint CDR and after perusal of the Show Cause Notice and the order-in-adjudication & the role of the CHA firm and the partner brought out, at this prima facie stage, it is felt that these two appellants should be put to certain terms.
(c) Consequently, it is ordered that on a pre deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs in regard to be made by the CHA firm, on such a deposit being effected, further pre deposits required from the CHA firm and its partner would stand waived and recovery thereof stayed. This pre deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs should be made and compliance thereof reported on 6.4.2004.
3. The stay applications are disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court)