ORDER
V.K. Agrawal
1. This is an application filed by Shri Anil Jatia, for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.15 lakhs imposed as penalty on him by the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned Order.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that a quantity of 6,174.90 Mts., of silk fabrics of Chinese origin valued at Rs. 12,34,980/-was seized from Maruti Van in front of Naroji Nagar, New Delhi on 23-1-98. Further, on search of the premises of M/s Resham India, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi, owned by Sanjay Maheshwari who was sitting in van, a quantity of 13,316.62Mts of China Silk valued at Rs. 26.63 lakhs approximately was recoverd and seized under Customs Act. Statement of Shri Sanjay Maheshwari was recorded on the same day from which it comes out that he had smuggled China Silk fabrics. Statement of godown incharge of M/s Prakash Transport Company, which were carriers of the goods in question from Nepal, was also recorded in which it was deposed the impugned goods were transported from Nepal to Delhi and goods were received from Nepal were stored in Kishan Ganj Godown and delivered on the production of deliverly order issued by Taliwara Office. One Shri Mahabir Prasad Goenka in his statement dt. 21-9-98 stated that he had supplied 5 bales of Chinese silk fabrics to Sanjay Maheshwari, under the direction of Shri Anil Jatia of M/s Annapurna Textiles, Nepal, after Collecting them from M/s Prakash Transport Company godown. He also admitted that he had delivered three more consignments of the China Silk in September and October in 1997 and January 1998 to Sanjay Maheshwari under the directions of Shri Anil Jatia. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order, has confiscated the seized goods and Maruti Van and imposed a penalty, interaila, of Rs. 15 lakhs on Shri Anil Jatia.
3. Shri V. M. Dhoiphode, Ld. Advocate, submitted that Shri Anil Jaitia is the Managing Director of M/s Annapurna Textiles Ltd., which neither manufacture silk fabrics nor import silk from any country nor export china silk to India; that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show his connection with the seized goods; that the impugned Order is bad in law as there was no application of mind; that in Paragraph 11.3 of Order, the Commissioner has discussed the role of applicant and has given his findings that eh involvement of applicant was established by corroborative evidence available in the form of Stock Registers and delivery Orders seized at Prakash Transport Company the import of which was detailed by Shri Suresh Chand Attri, Shri M.P. Goenka and Shri Sanjay Maheshwari; that stock registers and deliever Orders have not been relied upon in the show cause notices and as such no reliance can be placed on such documents for imposing penalty on the Applicant. He finally submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Stay Order No./ S/72-74/2000- NB dt. 7-2-2001 has stayed the recovery of penalty imposed on M/s Prakash Transport Corporation; that the Applicant’s role has been discussed by the Commissioner both as Director of Annapurana Textiles Ltd. and the Proprietor of Prakash Transport Company and as penalty imposed on PTC has been stayed, the recovery from the applicant may also be stayed.
4. Opposing the prayer, Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. SDR, submitted that the involvement of applicant with the impugned goods is evident from the evidences mentioned in show cause notice and the impugned Order. The ld. SDR specifically referred to the statement dt. 22-1-98 of Shri M.P. Goyanka, in which he had deposed that he used to visit Kathmandu almost every month; around 5-6 manths back he met Shri Anil Jatia at Kathmandu’; Anil Jatia suggested him to sell curtain cloth on commission basis; that the Applicant informed him on phone about sending china silk fabrics besides the regular consignment of curtain cloth which he should hand over to Sanjay Maheshwari. The ld. SDR, further, mentioned that the Tribunal had directed both Sanjay Maheshwari and M. P. Goyanka to Deposit Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs 1 lakhs towards penalty respectively vide Stay Order No. 72/74/2001 dt. 7-2-2001. He therefore, pleaded that the applicant should also be directed to deposit penalty amount.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The various submissions made by the Ld. Advocate can be considered only at the time of final hearing. However, we are of the view that a prima facie case has not been made out for waiver of entire amount of penalty. We, therefore, direct the Applicant to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within 8 weeks from today and on complying with this direction, there will be waiver of the remaining amount of penalty and the recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The matter will come up for reporting complance on 24-5-2001.