2010 (11) TMI 914 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty by the Commissioner for misdeclaration of value in an imported consignment.
- Challenge by the Revenue against the imposition of a lesser penalty amount.
- Interpretation of Section 112(iii) regarding the minimum penalty amount.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order where the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the respondent for misdeclaration of value in an imported consignment of mobile phones. The Revenue contended that as per Section 112(iii), the penalty should not be less than Rs. 5,000 if the differential duty is less than Rs. 5,000. The Tribunal examined the relevant provision of law which states that the penalty should not exceed the difference between the declared value and the actual value or Rs. 5,000, whichever is greater. However, the provision does not specify a mandatory lower-limit for the penalty amount.

Upon reviewing the case records and submissions, the Tribunal found no mandatory lower-limit for the penalty amount in the provision. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000 by the Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating it lacked merit. The judgment clarified that while there is an upper-limit for the penalty amount as per the provision, there is no mandatory lower-limit specified, thus supporting the decision to uphold the penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed on the respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the absence of a mandatory lower-limit for penalty amount in the relevant provision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the respondent for misdeclaration of value in the imported consignment.