2016 (2) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Demand of duty and levy of penalty - Import of fire crackers from China - restricted items - The appellants imported certain consignments of fire crackers by mis-declaring the same and on being importation, the goods were examined, they were found to be fire crackers which is a restricted item which can be imported only on the strength of license L 8. As the appellants were not having license L 8 , therefore, these goods were absolutely confiscated. It was also alleged that goods were undervalued. Held that - On merits, there is no issue before me. Therefore, I confirm the order on merits. - the penalty imposed on the appellant upheld - Decided against the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against impugned orders for reducing penalties under sections 112 A and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case:
The appellants imported firecrackers from China, a restricted item requiring a license. They mis-declared the goods and imported them without the necessary license. Upon examination, the goods were found to be firecrackers, leading to absolute confiscation. Allegations of undervaluation were also made, resulting in penalties under sections 112 A and 114 AA of the Act.

2. Appellant's Submission:
The penalties imposed on the appellants varied across cases. The appellant argued that the penalties were disproportionately high in some cases compared to others. The counsel for the appellants acknowledged the case's merits but contested the quantum of penalties, citing discrimination in penalty imposition.

3. Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue opposed the appellant's contention, stating that penalties were justified due to the importation of restricted items without the required license. They argued for an increase in penalties, considering the nature of the restricted goods.

4. Decision and Rationale:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found no merit-based issues. However, it acknowledged the disparity in penalty amounts across cases. The penalty imposed in one case was deemed appropriate, leading to the dismissal of that appeal. In other cases, where penalties were significantly higher, the Tribunal found them excessive. Consequently, the penalties in those cases were reduced to align with the penalty amount imposed in the upheld case.

5. Final Disposition:
The Tribunal upheld the penalty in one appeal while reducing penalties in other appeals to maintain consistency and fairness. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with penalties revised to &8377; 2 lakh and Rs. One lakh under sections 112 A and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for all appellants involved.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in penalty imposition and the need to avoid discriminatory practices while ensuring compliance with import regulations and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.