2015 (9) TMI 975 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Violation of EXIM Policy - Held that - There is no bar on the adjudicating authority, in a de-novo proceedings, to determine the quantum of fine or penalty. The fine and penalty imposed has been set aside and the matter is live for re- adjudication. Hence earlier order imposing fine or penalty does not have any relevance. The adjudicating authority, at its discretion, may impose appropriate fine or penalty. It does not matter whether the proceedings have been initiated afresh or heard by way of de-novo proceedings on the orders of the Tribunal. Question of challenging enhancement of penalty does not arise in a case of this nature, where the adjudication order itself has been set aside in its entirety and the matter remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication, namely de-novo enquiry. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported printing machines and imposition of penalty under Customs Act.
2. Appeal against the orders of the adjudicating authority and Tribunal.
3. Substantial questions of law framed for consideration by the High Court.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of imported printing machines and imposition of penalty under Customs Act:
The appellant's firm faced a show cause notice for the confiscation of 16 second-hand printing machines imported but not found in the premises. The adjudicating authority initially ordered confiscation and imposed a penalty under Sections 111(o) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Upon appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for reconsideration. The subsequent adjudicating authority reaffirmed the confiscation and imposed a reduced penalty, which was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, citing the violation of actual user conditions and the reasonable nature of the imposed penalty. The High Court noted that in de-novo proceedings, the authority has the discretion to determine fines or penalties, regardless of previous orders. The High Court upheld the imposition of the enhanced penalty, emphasizing that the matter was remanded for re-adjudication, allowing the authority to decide on the penalty as deemed appropriate.

Issue 2: Appeal against the orders of the adjudicating authority and Tribunal:
The appellant challenged the orders of the adjudicating authorities and the Tribunal before the High Court. The High Court addressed the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, focusing on whether the Tribunal erred in confirming the enhanced penalty in the de-novo proceedings and the justifiability of the enhanced penalty without an appeal by the Revenue against the original order. The High Court clarified that in cases where the adjudication order is set aside entirely and remanded for re-adjudication, the authority has the discretion to impose fines or penalties as deemed fit, irrespective of previous penalties imposed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal and the connected petition, upholding the imposition of the enhanced penalty by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 3: Substantial questions of law framed for consideration by the High Court:
The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's confirmation of the enhanced penalty in de-novo proceedings and the justifiability of the enhanced penalty without a Revenue appeal against the original order. The High Court clarified that in cases of complete remand for re-adjudication, the authority has the discretion to impose fines or penalties as appropriate, irrespective of previous penalties imposed. The High Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the Revenue, affirming the imposition of the enhanced penalty by the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the imposition of the enhanced penalty by the adjudicating authority in the de-novo proceedings, emphasizing the authority's discretion in determining fines or penalties in cases of complete remand for re-adjudication.

← Previous Next →