2017 (2) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act, 1962 - failure to specify the name of the firm or individual on whom the penalty u/s 114A of CA, 1962 was fastened - Held that - penalty u/s 114A is liable to be imposed on the person liable to pay duty as determined in proceedings under section 28 - The importer in the present matter has been identified in the impugned order as noticee and has been fastened with differential duty on the enhanced value. Doubtlessly, it is the same entity that is liable to be penalised. There is no requirement for a specific mention of the importer to validate the penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. The order is not invalidated on that count - imposition of penalty justified. Penalty u/s 112 of CA, 1962 - Held that - While one penalty has been imposed u/s 114A, the penalty of ₹ 19,29,000/- is without reference to any provision, let alone section 112 as presumed by the appellant. Even if such penalty was imposed u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so - imposition of penalty presumed to be u/s 112, cannot also be faulted. Imposition of penalty both u/s 114A and u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is not improper - revenue dismissed - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-original rejecting declared value, enhancing assessable value, confirming differential duty, confiscating goods, imposing penalties under unspecified provision and section 114A of Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 114A
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the order did not specify the person liable for the penalty. However, the judge ruled that the importer, identified as 'notice,' was liable for the penalty as they were responsible for the differential duty. The judge emphasized that the penalty under section 114A is to be imposed on the person liable to pay duty as determined under section 28, and there was no requirement for specific mention of the importer in the order. The judge found no grounds to invalidate the penalty under section 114A, as the appellant failed to identify any alternative person to be made liable for the penalty.

Issue 2: Penalty Imposed without Reference to Provision
The appellant raised concerns about the penalty of ?19,29,000/- imposed without reference to any provision, presuming it to be under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge clarified that even if the penalty was imposed under section 112, it was a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m), as determined by the adjudicating Commissioner. The judge concluded that the imposition of penalty, whether under section 112 or 114A, was justified in the circumstances of the case.

Issue 3: Imposition of Multiple Penalties
The appellant also challenged the imposition of penalties under both section 114A and section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge held that the imposition of penalties under both sections was not improper, considering the nature of the offenses and the liabilities involved. The judge found no fault in imposing penalties under multiple provisions of the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the order-in-original that rejected the declared value, enhanced the assessable value, confirmed the differential duty, confiscated the goods, and imposed penalties under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment clarified the rationale behind the imposition of penalties and affirmed the decision of the adjudicating authority.