2017 (4) TMI 1299 - HC - Customs

Whether the CESTAT is justified in reducing the penalty drastically, while upholding the absolute confiscation of the goods? - Held that - The Tribunal found that the penalties were not commensurate with the role played and by each one of them. The Tribunal found that the mastermind was one Rajendra Bhutada. The role of others is limited and as found by the Tribunal - the penalties have been reduced after referring to the role of each of the persons involved in the act of bringing the currency in India illegally - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of penalty by CESTAT while upholding goods confiscation; Justification of penalty reduction by CESTAT.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard the appeals by the Revenue, which raised the issue of whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in significantly reducing the penalty while confirming the confiscation of goods in a particular case. The Tribunal's order dated January 15, 2015, upheld the confiscation of goods but intervened in the penalty amount imposed. The primary argument before the High Court was the lack of discussion or reasoning provided by the Tribunal when altering the penalty post-confiscation. However, the High Court disagreed with this contention, noting that the Tribunal had considered the individual roles of the involved parties. The Tribunal identified one individual as the mastermind and limited roles of others, leading to a reduction in penalties based on the specific roles played by each individual. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was supported by reasoning provided in the impugned order, specifically in paragraph 7.8. The High Court concluded that these factual findings did not give rise to substantial questions of law, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in the case addressed the issue of penalty reduction by CESTAT while confirming the confiscation of goods and whether such reduction was justified. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the consideration of individual roles in determining the penalties imposed. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing reasoning for decisions, which the Tribunal had done in this case. The High Court's analysis focused on the factual findings and the legal basis for the penalty reduction, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.