2020 (1) TMI 950 - HC - Customs

Waiver of penalty u/s 114AA of CA - reduction in the quantum of penalty imposed u/s 112(a) of CA - abetment of the smuggling activities - maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact, no question of law arises from the order of the learned Tribunal, much less substantial question of law, which is the requirement for maintaining the appeal under Section 130 of the Act. The matter relates to imposition, deletion or reduction of the amount of penalty are within the discretion of the fact finding bodies and the learned Tribunal being the highest fact finding body, in its fair exercise of discretion, has reduced the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act while setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA of the Act. The activity of the import of the prohibited goods by covering them with the help of some goods, which are declared and permitted under law, reflected the lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant and the three authorities have concurrently found against the appellant that there were imports made by the Assessee contrary to law. We cannot re-examine the findings of facts at this stage under Section 130 of the Act and as far as the question of penalty is concerned as stated above, the reduction of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act from ₹ 10,00,000/- was rather a lenient approach taken by the Tribunal and the same does not require any interference by this Court - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against penalty reduction.
2. Reduction of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Act.
4. Lack of bonafides in import activities.
5. Discretion of fact-finding bodies in penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order reducing the penalty imposed under Sections 114AA and 112(a) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 114AA and reduced the penalty under Section 112(a) from ?10,00,000 to ?5,00,000. The Tribunal's observations highlighted the lack of justification for the high penalty imposed under Section 114AA due to insufficient evidence of intentional involvement in false materials.

2. The Tribunal found that while the appellant, as a Customs House Agent (CHA), may not have actively participated in the smuggling activities, their association with the main player indicated some level of knowledge. Thus, the penalty under Section 112(a) was deemed applicable, albeit reduced to ?5,00,000 considering the role of the CHA as depicted in the notice and order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's connection to the import activities involving prohibited goods.

3. The Tribunal's analysis revealed discrepancies in the imposition of penalties under Sections 114AA and 112(a). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving intentional involvement in false materials for penalty under Section 114AA. In contrast, the penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld due to the appellant's association with the import activities, even if direct involvement in fabrication was not proven.

4. The judgment highlighted the lack of bonafides in the import activities of the appellant, as reflected in the covering of prohibited goods with permitted goods. This lack of bonafides, along with findings against the appellant by three authorities, supported the imposition and reduction of penalties under Sections 114AA and 112(a) respectively.

5. The High Court, upon review, concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's discretion in reducing the penalty under Section 112(a) and setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was a fair exercise of discretion, and the reduction of penalty was considered lenient, warranting no interference from the Court.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 while setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA, emphasizing the lack of bonafides in the import activities and the discretion of fact-finding bodies in penalty imposition.