2016 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Waiver of penalty - Appellant, a G Card Holder involved in the customs clearance of consignment - Mis-declaration of imported goods with respect to description, quantity and value of goods - Settlement Commission reduced the penalty from ₹ 5lakhs to ₹ 10,000/- - Held that - it is clear that the appellant was aware of the actual importer and knowingly he has handled the documents of IEC holder who was not the actual importer. Therefore even though he may or may not aware of the content of the consignment he was involved in the illegal import of the goods. As regard the submission of appellant based on the reliance of S.K. Colombowala Vs. Commissioner of Customs judgment of Tribunal 2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , the essence of the judgment is that the treatment is given to the other parties by the Settlement Commission should be extended to the present appellant. Since, in the case of other party i.e Shri Farid Abbajunma and M/s. Saibaba Traders the penalties of ₹ 50,000/- and ₹ 10,000/- respectively were imposed. Even applying to the same ratio, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reduced the penalty substantially from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 10,000/-. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the settlement order in its entirety which does not require any interference, therefore the impugned order is upheld. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues: Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) based on Settlement Commission order; Appellant's involvement in mis-declaration of imported goods; Applicability of S.K. Colombowala judgment on the present case.

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-I, wherein the penalty imposed on the appellant was reduced from ?5 lakhs to ?10,000. The appellant, a G Card Holder and Power of Attorney Holder, was involved in customs clearances where mis-declaration of imported goods was discovered regarding description, quantity, and value. The lower authorities found the appellant aware of the actual importer and involved in the mis-declaration. Other parties in the case had settled with the Settlement Commission, resulting in penalties of ?50,000 and ?10,000 imposed on them. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the appellant's penalty based on this settlement order.

The appellant argued that the case of the main persons settled by the Settlement Commission should have precluded adjudication against other co-noticees, citing the S.K. Colombowala judgment. It was contended that the appellant was not directly involved in the mis-declaration but only in handling documents and goods clearance, lacking knowledge of the actual content of the consignment. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative maintained that the penalty reduction to ?10,000 was appropriate based on the settlement order, despite the S.K. Colombowala judgment.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant was aware of the actual importer and knowingly handled documents of an IEC holder who was not the actual importer, implicating him in the illegal import of goods. While the appellant's knowledge of the consignment's content was disputed, his involvement in the illegal import was established. The Tribunal held that the essence of the S.K. Colombowala judgment required extending the treatment given to settled parties to the appellant. Since penalties were imposed on other parties based on settlement, the Commissioner (Appeals) appropriately reduced the penalty from ?5 lakhs to ?10,000. Upholding the Commissioner's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the reduction of penalty based on the settlement order.