NALIN Z. MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a stay application filed by Shri Nalin Z. Mehta along with others miscellaneous application No. C/MA/EHS/731 to 733/11/C/S -421 to 423, 458, 504/11 -DB. The application is for waiver and dispensation of pre -deposit and for grant of stay against the operation of Order -in -Original No. 2 to 4/Commr/ICD -Vapi/JNPT/2011, dated 19 -1 -2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The facts of the case are that records of import of vitrified tiles showed the country of origin as Malaysia and on scrutiny of the bills of entry and other import documents indicated purportedly that M/s. Shobha Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Valsad, H.V. Ceramics, Vapi and M/s. PFZ Corporation had imported vitrified tiles to India, submitting documents showing the supplier as M/s. Synergy Tradecom, Malaysia. The importers explained that origin of goods to be Malaysia but on verification, it showed that the certificate of origin showing Malaysia as country of origin was false. Show cause notices were issued to all concerned demanding anti -dumping duty and proposing recovery of interest, penalty and confiscation of the vitrified tiles. The Commissioner vide his Order -in -Original confirmed the demands of anti -dumping duty against M/s. Shobha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Bakul Zaverilal Mehta jointly and severally. He also imposed redemption fine against both the persons jointly and severally along with confirmation of interest jointly and severally. Penalties were also imposed on these two parties. They went in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner for fixing responsibilities of each and every individual separately. In the fresh order of adjudication, the Commissioner ordered demand and recovery of Rs. 4,71,32,477/ - from Shri Nalin Bakul Zaverilal Mehta. He imposed penalties on M/s. Shobha Plastics Pvt. Ltd., M/s. H.V. Ceramics, Vapi and M/s. PFZ Corporation, Vapi. Recovery of interest and mandatory penalty also was ordered. Against this order Shri Nalin Bakul Zaverilal Mehta and others filed an appeal along with stay application. The main contention of the applicants was that the proposal to recover duty under proviso to Section 28(1) was patently misconceived and erroneous. It was argued that the person chargeable with duty is the person who imports the goods and the applicant has neither filed any bill of entry nor any other document nor have signed any document submitted to the customs Authorities. M/s. Shobha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. has been established manifestly as the importer and not the applicant. He further submitted that various statements recorded were neither voluntary nor true and argued that the impugned order is unsustainable.

(2.) SHRI S.S. Sekhon and Shri Mayur Shroff, Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants reiterated the contentions in the stay application. It was argued that the charges against the applicants are unsustainable and therefore to be dropped. Shri Sekhon, learned advocate vehemently argued that the applicant was not the importer of goods and was not required to file any documents with the Customs Authorities; that he had not dealt with the importation of subject goods and had no role to play in the clearance of such goods. He relied upon the slew of judgments cited as follows :

(3.) THE learned advocate pleaded that the pre -deposit may be waived completely and stay of further recovery be granted to the applicants. As they were not the legal importers no such provisions were binding on them.