2017 (11) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Penalty on firm u/s 112(a) of CA, 1962 - penalty on partner u/s 1114AA of CA, 1962 - mis-declaration of goods - it was alleged that behind the consignment of slippers, undeclared quantity of ladies under-garments were concealed at the rear end, in excess of the declared goods - Held that - the Partner of the Firm Shri Abdul Wahid has not filed any appeal before the Tribunal against the Order-in Appeal which upheld the penalties on him. Hence, the submissions in the written note as to both appeals should be considered as one appeal, is rejected as Shri Abdul Wahid had preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority independently and should have filed an appeal before the Tribunal also. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - the said redemption fine is proportionate to the modus operandi adopted by the appellant in concealing the under-garments and not declaring the same - the penalty imposed on the said ladies under-garments is also proportionate and requires no interference on this point. Confiscation of slippers - Held that - the said goods are liable for confiscation is correct findings recorded and correctly held as confiscated - the ends of justice would be met if the redemption fine imposed on confiscation in respect of 66,000 pairs of slippers is reduced to ₹ 75,000/- and the penalty is reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant firm.
2. Penalty imposed on the Partner under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Reduction of redemption fine and penalties imposed.
4. Appeal by the Partner of the Firm against penalties upheld by the first appellate authority.
5. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the imposition of penalties under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant firm had imported slippers, but undeclared ladies' undergarments were found concealed with the goods. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of goods with fines and penalties imposed on both the firm and the Partner. The Tribunal upheld the penalties under section 112(a) on the firm, considering the concealment of goods and the value involved.

2. The Partner of the Firm, Shri Abdul Wahid, did not file an appeal before the Tribunal against the penalties imposed on him. The Tribunal rejected the plea to consider both appeals as one, emphasizing that each party should file separate appeals. The penalties imposed on the Partner under section 114AA were upheld due to the lack of appeal filed by him before the Tribunal.

3. The first appellate authority rejected the appeals for reduction of redemption fines and penalties. However, the Tribunal found the redemption fine and penalties imposed to be proportionate to the concealment of goods and the violation. The Tribunal modified the redemption fine and penalty on the slippers, reducing them to &8377; 75,000 and &8377; 50,000 respectively, deeming it appropriate for the ends of justice.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the confiscation of goods and the fines and penalties imposed. It upheld the confiscation of the slippers used to conceal the undergarments but found the original redemption fine and penalty disproportionate. The Tribunal's modification aimed to balance the penalty with the violation committed, ensuring justice was served in the case of M/s. Global Enterprises, Kerala.

5. The judgment was pronounced on 25/09/2017, disposing of the appeal with modifications to the redemption fine and penalty, providing a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and considerations involved in the case.

← Previous Next →