2002 (1) TMI 533 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:

1. Imposition of personal penalty under Sections 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Regularization of export obligation by DGFT.
3. Admissibility of penalty when goods are not liable for confiscation.

Issue 1: Imposition of Personal Penalty

The appeal challenged the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the appellant under Sections 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had obtained advanced licenses and imported raw silk and dupian silk without paying duty as per Exim Policy, 1992-97. Due to export difficulties, they applied to customs authorities, paid the due duty and interest, and regularized the export obligation defaults. However, DRI authorities initiated investigations and imposed the penalty, leading to the appeal against the Commissioner's order.

Issue 2: Regularization of Export Obligation by DGFT

The Commissioner acknowledged that the DGFT had regularized the export obligation shortcomings and confirmed the payment of necessary duty and interest by the appellant. The Commissioner held that there were no grounds for confiscation of goods, as the obligations had been rectified. However, the Commissioner imposed the penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, based on the initiation of proceedings by DRI and the subsequent regularization of defaults only after DRI's actions. This raised the question of whether the penalty was justified despite the regularization of export obligation.

Issue 3: Admissibility of Penalty When Goods Are Not Liable for Confiscation

The Tribunal analyzed the case law and held that penalty under Sections 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, could only be imposed if the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111. Since the goods were deemed not liable for confiscation due to regularization and payment of duty and interest, the Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- imposed on the appellant. The decision aligned with the precedent that penalties cannot be imposed when goods are not subject to confiscation, thereby granting consequential relief to the appellant.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, findings, and the ultimate decision by the Tribunal in setting aside the imposed penalty based on the legal provisions and precedents cited in the case.