Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
R.R. International, Friends Trading ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 17 June, 2003
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. This stay applications in all these appeals are being disposed off by this common order, since the issues involved are the same and common submissions were made by the appellants as well as the learned Jt.C.D.R.
2. It is found that no financial hardship is pleaded. From the copy of the letter, received from office of Director General of Foreign Trade (CLA), New Delhi, which were produced by the Department, on directions from the bench at the last hearing, it is evident that no D.E.P.S.s were issued in favour of M/s. Million Dollars Inc. and M/s. Abhiman Exports, Delhi. Prima facie, therefore it appears that the D.E.P.B.s in this case are not existing or valid. They could be fabricated and or forged documents and issues relating to the same have to be established or ruled out arrived at during the final hearing. Similarly consequences that would visit the appellants before us, have to be determined at the time of final hearing. At this preliminary stage, after considering the pleas made by the learned advocate for the appellants especially as regards to the question of denial of principal of natural justice and the other related pleas made, we find, that the following Supreme Court decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 342, it would be safe to conclude that there is force in the arguments being placed by Revenue that D.E.P.B.s in this case are null and void. We would therefore, consider this to be a fit case to place the importers & appellants before us, to condition of predeposit of 50% of duty as determined by the lower authorities vide the impugned orders. On deposit of this 50% of duty by 04/08/2003, as confirmed by the Adjudicating authority the balance duty amount would stand waived. The matter is adjourned to 04/08/2003 for enabling the appellants to report compliance and on such compliance being reported further recovery of amount of duty and penalty on the other appellants shall be stayed.
4. At this stage the learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the department has issued Section 142 notices, which is causing hardship and offers to deposit the amounts, now being ordered, at an early date with a request that the Tribunal should pass a suitable order as regards Section 142 orders. Considering this request, we grant the appellants liberty to mention, the fact of deposits if made earlier to the date fixed by us for reporting compliance of this order i.e.04/08/2003. Further consideration on request for orders on the detention order issued under Section 142, would be considered on the date such mention on compliance is made.
5. All the stay applications are disposed off in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court)