By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 27, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

Revenue is aggrieved by the adjudication order since no penalty was levied u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and no reason was assigned in that regard.

The adjudicating authority observed that mere negligence does not call for imposition of penalty.

The Bench observed that the CFS is a transit house for the movement of goods for export;that when the red sanders prohibited for export entered into the campus of CFS respondent, it was aware of the reason of entry of such goods since the documents accompanying the goods exhibited the nature and character thereof; that the goods found from CFS being red sanders and possession of such goods is prohibited; that invited provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The CESTAT further noted that the provisions of Section 114 (i) requires that penalty may be extended to three times of value of goods as determined or declared by the exporter, whichever is greater and, therefore, value of goods being Rs.34.74 lakhs, imposition of an exemplary penalty of Rs.20 lakhs is considered to be proper to meet the ends of justice .

The respondent pleaded that since the penalties imposed on others was very mild, the respondent should not be imposed with a harsh penalty.

To this submission, the CESTAT observed -

"It may be stated that doctrine of proportionality does not apply in penal proceedings when gravity of offence is different. Accordingly levy of suitable penalty is considered as proper measure to prevent recurrence of breach of law…"

The appeal of Revenue was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-3807-CESTAT-MUM)