9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 806 - AT - CustomsReduction in penalty - as per revenue u/s 40 of the Customs Act person-in-charge of a conveyance shall not permit the loading of export goods without a shipping bill duly passed by the proper officer and this is a serious and deliberate violation of the statute by the master of the vessel thus reduction in penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper - Held that - Reduction in penalty is discretion of the appellate authority, which cannot be challenged by the Department in the appeal. As per the judgment of M/s CSAV Group Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (7) TMI 165 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY in a similar case, that this is only a technical breach and penalty was also reduced in this case from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs - The Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against reduction of penalty by appellate authority. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the department against the reduction of penalty from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.10,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved a Shipping Line loading a container onto a vessel without proper documents and Let Export Order (LEO) from Customs. The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the Shipping Line, which was reduced by the appellate authority citing the minimal role of the Shipping Line regarding LEO. The Department argued that the Shipping Line violated Section 40 of the Customs Act by allowing the loading of export goods without a duly passed shipping bill, which was a serious violation. The Department contended that the reduction in penalty was improper. However, the respondent's advocate argued that the reduction in penalty was within the discretion of the appellate authority and cited a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court where a similar penalty reduction was upheld. Upon reviewing the case records and considering the arguments from both sides, the judge found merit in the respondent's advocate's arguments. The judge noted that the reduction in penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not warrant interference, especially in light of the High Court's decision upholding a similar penalty reduction in a comparable case. Consequently, the judge dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the appellate authority to reduce the penalty imposed on the Shipping Line.
|
