2017 (1) TMI 691 - AT - Customs

Reduction in quantum of penalty - During investigation, the appellant had paid some amount of Anti-Dumping Duty alongwith interest. The balance amount of duty and penalty of 25% was deposited by the appellant within one month from the date of issue of show cause notice - Held that - the entire amount of Anti-Dumping Duty alongwith interest and 25% of penalty was deposited before adjudication of the matter, we are of the view that further penalty (beyond 25% of the duty) to above extent cannot be imposed on the appellants - duty upheld, already paid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of Anti-Dumping Duty
2. Imposition of Penalty

Confirmation of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The case involved the appellant clearing consignments of pre-sensitized positive offset aluminum plates by declaring them as aluminum printing plates to avoid Anti-Dumping duty. The Department proceeded against the appellant for duty demand and penalty imposition. The appellant paid a portion of the Anti-Dumping Duty along with interest during investigation and the remaining amount with a penalty of 25% within one month of receiving the show cause notice. The Department confirmed the duty of ?5,61,320 along with interest and imposed a penalty of ?5,00,000 on the appellant and ?2,00,000 on the Director. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and reduced the penalties to ?2.5 Lakhs and ?25,000, respectively. The Tribunal found that the CTCP aluminum plates were pre-sensitized plates covered under Notification 108/2007-CE prescribing Anti-Dumping Duty. The Tribunal held that the entire Anti-Dumping Duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty were paid before adjudication, thus no further penalty beyond 25% of the duty could be imposed on the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed regarding the penalty imposition on both appellants.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade Anti-Dumping duty, and the Customs House Agent (CHA) mistakenly mentioned CTH 3701 in the Check List filed before Customs Authorities. The appellant contended that since a significant portion of the duty and interest was paid before investigation, and the remaining amount with a penalty equal to 25% of the duty was paid promptly after receiving the show cause notice, they should benefit from the provisions of Section 28(1A) read with the First Proviso to Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order regarding the confirmation of Anti-Dumping Duty but concluded that imposing a penalty beyond 25% of the duty amount was not justified since the appellant had already paid the required amounts before adjudication. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed only to the extent of penalty imposition on both appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposition beyond 25% of the duty amount, as the appellants had already paid the required sums before adjudication.