Laser Recyling and Harish B. Vs. Cc - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....had never negotiated for these goods and the goods were not claimed nor were there any indication except bill of lading that the goods were ordered by the applicant. he submits that the bank documents were never released from the bank by the applicant. he submits that since the applicant had not ordered for the goods nor is he claiming the ownership there was no question of levy of penalty on the applicant.3. learned counsel also submits that financial condition of the applicant is very bad inasmuch as the applicant lost much property in the earthquake in gujarat as the applicant belonged to bhuj.4. learned counsel, therefore, prays that pre-deposit of penalty may be waived.5. shri d.n. choudhary, learned dr opposes the request and submits that there were two consignments that arrived in the name of the applicants within a span of three days. he submits that for this particular consignment the applicant had released the papers but when the subsequent consignment came he disowned the ownership or any connection with the goods. learned dr, therefore, submits that penalty was warranted and that the applicants may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.6. on.....

Judgment:

1. Arguing the stay petition Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalty both on the proprietor as well as of the proprietory concern. He submits that penalty cannot be imposed both on proprietor and the proprietor firm.

2. Learned Counsel submits that the applicants had a good case and the balance of convenience lies in their favour. He submits that certain goods arrived in the name of the applicant. He submits that the applicant had never negotiated for these goods and the goods were not claimed nor were there any indication except bill of lading that the goods were ordered by the applicant. He submits that the bank documents were never released from the bank by the applicant. He submits that since the applicant had not ordered for the goods nor is he claiming the ownership there was no question of levy of penalty on the applicant.

3. Learned Counsel also submits that financial condition of the applicant is very bad inasmuch as the applicant lost much property in the earthquake in Gujarat as the applicant belonged to Bhuj.

4. Learned Counsel, therefore, prays that pre-deposit of penalty may be waived.

5. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned DR opposes the request and submits that there were two consignments that arrived in the name of the applicants within a span of three days. He submits that for this particular consignment the applicant had released the papers but when the subsequent consignment came he disowned the ownership or any connection with the goods. Learned DR, therefore, submits that penalty was warranted and that the applicants may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.

6. On careful consideration of the submissions made we note that the applicant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of penalty. In the circumstances, we direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.0 lac (rupees one lac) on or before 18.7.2002.

On deposit of the above amount the deposit of the balance amount of penalty shall be dispensed with and the recovery thereof shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeals.

7. Failure to comply with the above directions shall lead to vacation of the stay and dismissal of the appeals without any further notice.

8. The matter should be listed for reporting compliance and passing further orders on 25.7.2002.