2013 (12) TMI 117 - AT - Customs

Penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) - Penalty for improper importation of goods - Interpretation of the words that a person is liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees whichever is greater - Held that - When the words used are not exceeding a particular amount , it does not mean that the amount so specified becomes the minimum penalty to be imposed - Even otherwise, considering the nature of dispute and the stakes involved it is not appropriate for the department to have carried an appeal against the order of the original authority to the Commissioner (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal as well - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of penalty provisions under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The original authority confiscated used electrical goods valued at Rs.17,380 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, allowing redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,800 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 500 under Section 112(a).
2. The Department appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking an enhancement of the penalty to a minimum of Rs. 5,000, which was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The Department argued that the penalty should have been increased to Rs. 5,000, citing Section 112 of the Customs Act, which provides for penalties not exceeding certain amounts based on the value of goods or duty evaded.
4. The issue revolved around interpreting the provision that a person is liable "to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees whichever is greater." The Department contended for a minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the provision does not mandate a minimum penalty.
5. The Tribunal clarified that when the statute specifies "not exceeding a particular amount," it does not set a minimum penalty requirement. Therefore, the Department's argument for a minimum penalty was deemed unwarranted.
6. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that given the nature of the dispute and the stakes involved, it was not appropriate for the Department to pursue appeals from the original authority to the Commissioner (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal.
7. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, upholding the original penalty imposed by the authority and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).