2013 (8) TMI 618 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of description of goods export of non-basmati rice as basmati rice - redemption fine imposed - Various pleas raised in adjudication were demolished finding no basis nor backed by basic evidence for which the appellant failed to succeed in adjudication - Held that - no leniency can be made to reduce redemption fine as redemption fine imposed by learned adjudicating authority - there was no rebuttal to the test report which proved that non-basmati rice were attempted to be exported. Penalty - attempt to export was perpetuated as is apparent from record because appellant lost its plea of no presence at the time of loading of rice being baseless - Held that - not inclined to reduce penalty to 10% of the imposed amount but recuded it to some extent - Penal proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and quantum of penalty depends on gravity of offence, modus operandi, and the offence perpetrated. To ban perpetration or commitment of offence appropriate penalty is considered on the facts and circumstances of each case penalty reduced - appeal decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills, Adjudication order, Penalty imposition, Reduction of penalty

Mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills:
The case involved two consignments of rice mis-declared as basmati rice for export. Investigation revealed the mis-declaration in the shipping bills, leading to the detention of the goods. The goods were tested, confirming they were non-basmati rice, resulting in confiscation of a portion of the rice meant for export. Further investigations exposed additional consignments with similar mis-declarations, leading to an adjudication order.

Adjudication order:
The adjudication order was based on investigations that disproved the appellant's claims of mistaken delivery and lack of supervision during loading. The appellant's pleas were found baseless, leading to the confiscation of the rice and imposition of penalties. The appellant was given the option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine. The order emphasized the importance of evidence and the appellant's failure to provide a valid defense.

Penalty imposition:
The appellant argued for leniency due to alleged unavoidable circumstances and supplier errors. However, the revenue department maintained that the attempt to export non-basmati rice was proven by test reports, justifying the penalties imposed. The tribunal upheld the redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs but reduced the penalty considering the circumstances of the case, imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs to mitigate litigation.

Reduction of penalty:
The tribunal justified the reduction in penalty based on the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing that each case's facts and context must be considered independently. While departing from a previous order where penalties were reduced to 10%, the tribunal highlighted the quasi-criminal nature of penal proceedings and the need to deter offenses effectively. The decision to reduce the penalty was made to balance the gravity of the offense and the need to prevent future violations, ensuring a fair outcome for the appellant.