By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 06, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The respondent had imported automobile speakers of various models and filed bills of entry.

In adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner of Customs, Goa rejected the declared value, resorted to enhancement of assessable value, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 23,69,634/- with interest thereon, confiscated the goods while acknowledging the lack of their availability, imposed penalty under an unspecified provision in lieu of redemption fine and imposed penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act, 1962.

The Committee, not satisfied, by the failure to specify the name of the firm or individual on whom the penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was fastened, by the imposition of penalty u/s 112 in addition to section 114A and by the imposition of penalty under section 112 in lieu of redemption fine, has authorized this appeal against the impugned order seeking remand to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of these points.

None appeared for the respondent.

The Member (Technical) inter alia observed -

++ There is no doubt that the impugned order has merely imposed penalty under section 114A without identifying the person from whom it is to be recovered. I do not find this to be a lacuna in the impugned order; penalty under section 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. The appellant has also not identified any alternative person who should be made liable to penalty.

++ While one penalty has been imposed u/s 114A, the penalty of Rs.23,70,000 is without reference to any provision, let alone section 112 as presumed by the appellant (Revenue). Even if such penalty was imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, this is a consequence of holding the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m) and the adjudicating Commissioner has rendered a finding for doing so. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty, presumed to be under section 112, cannot be faulted.

++ Likewise, imposition of penalty, both under section 114A and section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is not improper.

The Revenue appeal was dismissed

(See 2017-TIOL-321-CESTAT-MUM)