| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/23385 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Decided On | May-27-2001 |
| Appellant | Shri Sunil Behl |
| Respondent | Cce, New Delhi |
2. The proceedings were drawn against the appellant under Section 124 of the Customs Act for confiscation of the miscellaneous goods of foreign origin, namely, crystal items, wall photo frames, crockery and cutlery electronic etc. imported in violation of the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Act. All the goods were seized from his residential premies at Faridabad in the presence of his wife Savita Behl and two independent witnesses in joint operation by the staff of Haryana Police and Income Tax Department. On demand by the Customs Officers the appellant could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise, showing lawful possession/control of all those goods which were of foreign origin. The recovery of the goods was admitted by him in his statement dated 15.5.99 tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He, however, alleged that he was an architect and his annual income was about Rs.20 lakhs per annum. Besides the imported goods, 45 bottles of foreign liquor were also recovered from his premises and those were taken into possession by the Haryana Police as he failed to produce any document for lawful possession of the same.
The business premises of the appellant was also searched in a follow-up on 16.5.99 but nothing incriminating was found.
3. The Commissioner through the impugned order directed the confiscation of the goods and also imposed penalty on the appellant as detailed above.
4. The appellant through the present application, has sought complete waiver of the penalty amount of Rs.3 crore for the purposes of hearing of his appeal. The learned counsel has contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner is illegal/invalid as there was no material before him to give the findings that the disputed goods seized from the house of the appellants were smuggled or imported in contravention of the provisions of Customs Act. The goods seized from the house were of daily use and not prohibited goods. Therefore, neither the confiscation of the goods under any provisions of the Customs Act nor personal penalty could be imposed legally on the appellant. He has also pleaded financial hardship of the appellant for waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount.
5. On the other hand, the learned SDR has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and submitted that no prima facie case is made out for the waiver of the penalty amount.
7. All the confiscated goods seized from the residential premies of the appellant are admittedly in the custody of the Customs authorities and their redemption on payment of the redemption fine equivalent to the value of the goods i.e. Rs.4, 93, 80, 856/- has not been prayed by the appellant. The question as to whether the goods seized from his premises were of horeign original as this fact had been denied by the appellant during the adjudication proceedings and had been imported by him in violation of the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act being prohibited goods and not available in India for sale and purchase, cannot be determined at this stage being a question of fact which requires close scrutiny and marshalling of the facts of the case.
But prime facie the impugned order of the Commissioner ordering confiscation of the goods after ascertaining that these were of foreign origin as the appellant failed to furnish any proof for the lawful acquisition and possession of the same cannot be said to be illegal and unsustainable under the law. The impugned order passed by him is detailed one and he has given reasons to substantiate the same.
8. The equity and the balance of convenience for the total waiver of the penalty amount also cannot be said to be in favour of the appellant having been found in possession of large number of imported goods without holding any lawful document in respect thereof.
9. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the confiscated goods of the value of more than the penalty amount are already in possession of the Customs authorities, in our view ends of justice would be met and the Revenue's interest would also stand safeguarded if the appellant is directed to make pre-deposit of Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees thirty lakhs only) out of the total penalty amount of Rs.3 crore/Rupees three crore only). Therefore, we order accordingly.
The appellant is directed to make pre-deposit of this amount of Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees thirty lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on deposit of this amount pre-deposit of the balance penalty amount shall stand waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. However, in case the appellant failed to comply with this order his appeal would become liable to be dismissed under Section 129-E of the Customs Act.