2017 (2) TMI 354 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act, 1962 - failure to specify the name of the firm or individual on whom the penalty u/s 114A of CA, 1962 was fastened - Held that - penalty u/s 114A is liable to be imposed on the person liable to pay duty as determined in proceedings under section 28 - The importer in the present matter has been identified in the impugned order as noticee and has been fastened with differential duty on the enhanced value. Doubtlessly, it is the same entity that is liable to be penalised. There is no requirement for a specific mention of the importer to validate the penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. The order is not invalidated on that count - imposition of penalty justified. Penalty u/s 112 of CA, 1962 - Held that - While one penalty has been imposed u/s 114A, the penalty of ₹ 14,61,000/- is without reference to any provision, let alone section 112 as presumed by the appellant. Even if such penalty was imposed u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so - imposition of penalty presumed to be u/s 112, cannot also be faulted. Imposition of penalty both u/s 114A and u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is not improper - revenue dismissed - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of declared value, enhancement of assessable value, differential duty confirmation, goods confiscation, penalty imposition under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Goa, rejecting the declared value, enhancing the assessable value, confirming a differential duty, confiscating the goods, and imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contested the penalty imposition under section 114A, claiming a lack of specificity regarding the person liable for the penalty. However, the tribunal found that the importer, identified as the 'noticee,' was the entity liable for penalty under section 114A, as it was the same entity liable for the differential duty. The tribunal ruled that there was no requirement for specific mention of the importer to validate the penalty under section 114A, and the order was not invalidated on that basis. The appellant failed to identify an alternative person who should be liable for the penalty, leading to the dismissal of this argument.

2. The tribunal addressed the imposition of a penalty of ?14,61,000 without reference to any specific provision, challenging the appellant's presumption that it was imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal clarified that even if the penalty was presumed to be under section 112, it was a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m), as determined by the adjudicating Commissioner. Therefore, the imposition of the penalty, whether under section 112 or not, was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty under section 112 and dismissed the appellant's contention regarding the lack of reference to a specific provision.

3. Furthermore, the tribunal addressed the issue of the imposition of penalties under both section 114A and section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that the imposition of penalties under both sections was not improper, indicating that the penalties were justified based on the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the penalties imposed under sections 114A and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal's decision was pronounced in court, concluding the matter.