By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 23, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2008 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), NhavaSheva.

Revenue is unhappy with the quantum of penalty imposed on the importer and says that fraudulent import made through 'benami' transaction and 'benami' funding is detrimental to the national interest; that although there was a proposition to impose penalty in the show-cause notice dated 28.10.2004 against the appellant under section 112/114A of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority chose to impose penalty u/s 114A only.

The respondent failed to turn up for the hearing and also did not make any written submission.

The Bench observed -

"3. Considering the gravity of the matter and also the quantum of penalty imposed by learned adjudicating authority it appears that the said authority while imposing penalty ignored mandate of the statute to impose penalty of equivalent amount of duty. That has caused prejudice to Revenue. When fraud of the aforesaid nature occurred, learned adjudicating authority should not have misplaced sympathy on the respondent in levy of penalty to deter evasion. Revenue's submission having force to direct imposition of penalty of Rs.2,71,98,816/- under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 against the respondent that is ordered."

The appeal of Revenue was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-3044-CESTAT-MUM)