2013 (11) TMI 32 - AT - Customs

Reduction of penalty - Over valuation of goods exported - Held that - Revenue has been seriously prejudiced as role of C.H.A. is well known to the Commissioner of Customs in customs area which is very sensitive zone. The Appellate Authority should be conscious of the fact that customs matters should not be looked lightly which otherwise endangers the economy. This we say reading Para 5 of appellate order when we noticed that fake transaction was made in respect of subject goods which made the goods liable to confiscation - Notice is hereby issued to the appellant to show cause as to the reason why penalty imposed in adjudication shall not be restored. Appellant is directed to file its reply on 27th May, 2013, with a copy to other side. We direct the A.R. to ascertain whether there is appeal preferred by M/s. Twist International which is the main exporter - stay application rejected.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals), gravity of offence against Customs, role of Customs House Agent (C.H.A.), fake transaction leading to confiscation, restoration of penalty, stay application dismissal.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a 9-day delay in filing the appeal due to illness and holidays. The Tribunal, per D.N. Panda, allowed the condonation of delay upon considering the circumstances presented by the learned counsel. The miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was granted.

Reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Tribunal expressed surprise at the leniency of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 6,500 without acknowledging the gravity of the offence committed against Customs. The Tribunal noted the seriousness of the matter, emphasizing that customs issues should not be taken lightly as they can have detrimental effects on the economy.

Gravity of offence against Customs and role of C.H.A.:
The Tribunal highlighted the prejudice faced by the Revenue due to the known role of Customs House Agents (C.H.A.) in the sensitive customs area. It emphasized the importance of Customs matters and the need for the Appellate Authority to be mindful of the implications of actions that endanger the economy. The Tribunal noted a fake transaction involving subject goods, making them liable to confiscation.

Restoration of penalty:
A notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the penalty imposed in adjudication should not be restored. The appellant was directed to file a reply by a specified date, with the Additional Registrar tasked with confirming if there was an appeal by the main exporter. The Tribunal expected the Revenue to provide necessary information by the given date.

Dismissal of stay application:
In light of the reasons stated above, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court, concluding the judgment on the matter.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses all the issues involved, including the condonation of delay, penalty reduction, gravity of the offence against Customs, the role of C.H.A., fake transactions, restoration of penalty, and the dismissal of the stay application, providing a detailed insight into the Tribunal's findings and directives.