2018 (7) TMI 1016 - AT - Customs

Quantum of penalties - On identical issue concerning the same appellants for a live consignments of 3 shipping bills separate proceedings had been initiated and adjudication orders issued, which on appeal to the Tribunal had been disposed in the case of VISWANAATH AGRO PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, S.R. JANAKIRAM, J. GANESH KUMAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 2010 (4) TMI 1191 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the very same appellant had been reduced. Held that - The Tribunal in the said case, dealt with live consignments of goods which were available for inspection and verification. The Tribunal considered it proper and appropriate in that case to reduce the penalty substantially. However the present appeals are related to the consignment that were exported prior to that live consignments. These items that had actually been exported in these consignments were not available at the time of investigation and for which reason only, the adjudication has not imposed any redemption fine. At the same time, it has to be noted that the appellants have admitted their offence in respect of the past consignments also and have paid up an amount of ₹ 85 lakhs towards the adjudication liabilities. While these actions on the part of the appellants will not in any way sanctify or redeem their contraventions, they are nonetheless acts of contrition, which should be considered as mitigating factors while imposing penalties - the quantum of penalties reduced. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of penalties imposed on appellants for admitted export of banned items.
2. Comparison of penalties imposed on live consignments and past consignments.
3. Consideration of mitigating factors while imposing penalties.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the reduction of penalties imposed on appellants for the admitted export of banned items such as non-basmati rice, pulses, wheat, wheat flour, and Semolina disguised as other grocery items. The Tribunal noted that similar proceedings had been initiated previously, resulting in reduced penalties for the same appellants. The present case involved earlier imports by the same appellant, leading to penalties amounting to significant sums.

2. During the hearing, the appellants argued for reduced penalties citing previous Tribunal decisions and the amount already paid towards penalties. The respondent opposed the appeals, highlighting the difference between live consignments and past consignments in terms of the number of shipping bills involved. The Tribunal considered the availability of goods for inspection and verification in the earlier case, leading to substantially reduced penalties. However, in the present appeals concerning past consignments, the exported items were not available for investigation, leading to a different approach in penalty imposition.

3. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the facts, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' admission of the offense and the amount paid towards adjudication liabilities as acts of contrition. While these actions did not absolve the contraventions, they were viewed as mitigating factors in determining the appropriate penalties. Following a previous Tribunal decision, the penalties were reduced for each appellant, taking into account the circumstances and the amounts involved in the penalties originally imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to penalty reduction for admitted export violations, the distinction between penalties for live and past consignments, and the consideration of mitigating factors in penalty imposition.