2019 (12) TMI 71 - AT - Customs

Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Smuggling of contraband item - Gold Biscuits - HELD THAT - The value of the seized gold is to be seen at the time of seizure which was valued at ₹ 30,20,000/-. Further, if the market value of the impugned goods is ₹ 30,20,000/- then the imposition of fine of ₹ 21,00,000/- is on a higher side - thus, the imposition of fine of ₹ 21,00,000/- is on the higher side which is reduced to ₹ 7,50,000/- (approximately 25% of the market value of the gold). Quantum of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - In the first round of litigation, the Commissioner has imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- which was not challenged by the appellant and the same has become final and therefore in the De novo proceedings, imposition of penalty of ₹ 2,10,000/- is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962

Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The case involved an appeal against an order imposing a redemption fine of ?21,00,000 and a penalty of ?2,10,000 under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, respectively. The appellant argued that the fine was excessive and not in line with legal provisions. The Commissioner had increased the value of the seized gold during De novo proceedings, leading to the higher redemption fine. The Tribunal found the imposed fine to be excessive compared to the market value at the time of seizure and reduced it to ?7,50,000, approximately 25% of the market value. The decision was based on the principle that the value of seized goods should be determined at the time of seizure.

Imposition of Penalty:
Regarding the penalty under Section 112(a), the Tribunal noted that in the initial proceedings, a penalty of ?1,00,000 was imposed, which had become final as it was not challenged by the appellant. Therefore, the imposition of a higher penalty of ?2,10,000 in the De novo proceedings was deemed unsustainable in law. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the increased penalty, partly allowing the appeal by reducing the redemption fine while rejecting the higher penalty. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal principles and the importance of considering market values and previous decisions in such cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decision to adjust the redemption fine and set aside the increased penalty.