RAKESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 17 days in filing of the 4 appeals. The Counsel for the appellants states that the delay was due to the time by taken by them for receipt of the case records from the previous Counsel who were prosecuting the case before the adjudicating and the first appellate authorities (M/s. Gagrat and Co., Mumbai). The records were received from the previous Counsel in the first week of February, 2003 and thereafter some time was taken for preparing the appeals and presenting them before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellants prays for accepting this plea and condoning the delay. There is no serious opposition to this prayer. Moreover, I find enough evidence, on record, of M/s. Gagrat and Co. having appeared for the appellants in the previous proceedings. The delay in filing of the appeals is condoned.

(2.) The stay applications seek waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the various amounts of customs duty. The demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and sustained by the first appellate authority.

(3.) It appears from the records and the submissions made by both the sides that the original authority confirmed the demands of Customs duty on raw materials imported by the appellants and cleared free of duty under the DEPB Scheme. The imports were made under DEPB licence/scrips purchased from the market. The necessary release advices issued against such scrips were also produced by the appellants at the time of clearance of the imported material. The Department, later on, found that the DEPB scrips were forged documents as they had not been issued by the DGFT. On this basis, the Department, by show cause notices, proposed to assess the imported goods to duty of customs at tariff rates and demand such duty from the appellants. The learned Counsel submits that the appellants never knew that DEPB scrips were not genuine. They bona fide believed that the documents were genuine by reason of the endorsements made thereon by the Customs authorities as also by reason of the release advices issued by those authorities. Counsel submits that it was from the orders of the original authority that the applicants for the first time heard that the DGFT had not issued the DEPB scrips in question. The applicants wanted to confirm the position by a scrutiny of the correspondence between the DGFT and the Customs Department. A request in this behalf was made to the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeals preferred by the appellants against the orders of the original authority. The request, however, was not heeded. Counsel prays for waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in these facts and circumstances. However, fairly enough, she points out that, in similar matters, this Bench has issued orders directing pre -deposit of 50% of the duty amount for purpose of Section 129E. A copy of the stay order passed by this Bench in such a case is also produced by the Counsel. The DR acknowledges this precedent of the Bench.