ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. These applications have arisen in appeals filed against the orders of the Commissioner confirming demands of Special Additional Duty under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act and imposing mandatory penalties on the applicants under Section 114A of the Act.
2. It appears from the record that the impugned orders were passed against the applicants ex-parte on account of their failure to appear before the appellate authority in spite of repeated notices. In the case of M/s. Mehra Tea Company, a demand of Special Additional Duty of Rs. 35,955 has been confirmed against them and a penalty of equal amount imposed on them. In the case of M/s. R.S. Mehra Trading Company, a demand of SAD of Rs. 49,808 has been confirmed against them and a penalty of equal amount has been imposed on them. The facts are similar in both the cases. The appellants imported a certain quantity of Garlic (falling under Chapter 7 of the Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) from Pakistan during the period October 1998 to November 1998 at Customs Rail Cargo Complex, Amritsar and filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods. They claimed exemption from the Special Additional Duty on the goods in terms of the Notification No. 56/98-Cus. dated 1.8.98. While claiming the exemption, they filed a specific declaration to the effect that sale of the subject goods will not be effected from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of like goods. An undertaking was also given that if the goods disposed of in contravention of the above condition, they would pay SAD of Customs leviable on the goods. It appears from the record that, in spite of repeated notices, the applicants failed to appear before the adjudicating authority to ensure that they had duly complied with the conditions under the Notification. Hence the demand of SAD of Customs and the confirmation thereof by the Commissioner. It prima facie appears that the applicants have no strong case. They have also not pleaded any financial hardships in these applications.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to certain documents available on record in support of his plea that certain amounts have already been paid by them.
4. I have perused these documents, which do not evidence payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs. Ld. Counsel has asserted that the issue involved in these cases stands covered in favour of the applicants by decisions, but he has not been able to bring on record any such decision. However, I am inclined to take a lenient view in so far as the purpose of Section 129E of the Act is concerned. Accordingly, I grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amounts and direct the applicants to deposit the amounts of Special Additional Duty within a period of six weeks from today and report compliance on 4th June, 2002.
