9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1035 - AT - CustomsPenalty and fine for Mis-declaration of the description of the goods - short payment of duty - held that - The part played by Shri Balbir Singh Sethi clearly amounts of abetment of illicit import and also being concerned in transportation and storage of the illicitly imported goods which he knew were liable for confiscation. - penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 had been rightly imposed on Shri Balbir Singh Sethi. However, looking to the part played by him the penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- appears to be harsh and the same is reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Reduction of penalty where duty has been paid before SCN - held that - The ratio of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (2001 -TMI - 1709 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and just because the appellant had paid part of the duty demand prior to the issue of show cause notice, the penalty on them under Section 114A cannot be reduced to that extent. Penalty on proprietor as well as on firm - held that - penalty can be imposed either on him or on M/s. Meerut Exim and there is no justification for separate penalty on M/s. Meerut Exim or its Proprietor Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain as a proprietorship firm and its proprietor are not separate entities but are one entity. In view of this, while the penalty under Section 112 on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain is upheld, penalty under Section 112 on M/s. Import Exim is set aside. However, looking to the fact that penalty equal to the duty demand has been imposed on the importer firm under Section 114A, penalty on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain under Section 112(a) is reduced to Rs. 25,00,000/-. Fine u/s 125 - goods not available for confiscation - held that - in case of Blue Dart Express v. Commissioner of Customs (1999 -TMI - 90903 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) it was held that no fine can be imposed under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the goods held to be liable for confiscation but which are not available for confiscation for the reason that the same at the time of import had been cleared unconditionally without any objection - redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125(1) is not a fine as understood in criminal jurisprudence, that it is not a penalty in that sense, that it is only an option to the person to pay an amount in lieu of confiscation and that it contains no penal connotation.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty on Shri Balbir Singh Sethi. 2. Imposition of separate penalties on M/s. Meerut Exim and Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain under Section 114A and Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 3. Quantum of penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 4. Levy of fine under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 on goods not available for confiscation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty on Shri Balbir Singh Sethi: The Tribunal reviewed the involvement of Shri Balbir Singh Sethi in the illicit importation and clearance of ball bearings. It was established that Shri Balbir Singh Sethi, as the authorized signatory of M/s. Meerut Exim, actively participated in the clearance and storage of the misdeclared goods. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and other evidence indicated his knowledge and involvement in the conspiracy. The Tribunal concluded that his actions amounted to abetment of the illicit import and justified the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the penalty amount was reduced from Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- considering the extent of his involvement. 2. Imposition of Separate Penalties on M/s. Meerut Exim and Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain: The Tribunal addressed the issue of imposing penalties under both Section 114A and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was clarified that while Section 114A pertains to duty evasion through fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts, Section 112 deals with acts or omissions leading to goods being liable for confiscation. The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 114A on M/s. Meerut Exim but set aside the separate penalty under Section 112 on M/s. Meerut Exim, acknowledging that a proprietorship firm and its proprietor are not separate entities. The penalty under Section 112 on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain was upheld but reduced to Rs. 25,00,000/-. 3. Quantum of Penalty Under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal confirmed the imposition of a penalty equal to the duty demand of Rs. 1,18,17,739/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. It was emphasized that the penalty under this section is equal to the duty liability determined and cannot be reduced or waived based on the prior payment of duty before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., which supports the imposition of full penalty regardless of prior duty payment. 4. Levy of Fine Under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 on Goods Not Available for Confiscation: The Tribunal examined whether a redemption fine could be imposed on goods not available for confiscation. It distinguished between cases where goods are provisionally released against a bond and cases where goods are unconditionally released without objection at the time of import. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Weston Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, the Tribunal concluded that redemption fine under Section 125(1) cannot be imposed if the goods were unconditionally released and are not available for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- imposed on goods valued at Rs. 69,58,578/- CIF was set aside. However, the fine on seized goods available for confiscation was upheld. Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with the following key decisions: - The redemption fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- on goods not available for confiscation was set aside. - The penalty of Rs. 1,18,17,739/- on M/s. Meerut Exim under Section 114A was upheld. - The penalty on Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain under Section 112 was upheld but reduced to Rs. 25,00,000/-. - The penalty on Shri Balbir Singh Sethi under Section 112 was upheld but reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
|
