Tribunal reduces penalty, cites mitigating factors. Appeal dismissed, fine maintained, penalty modified.

The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 4.00 lakhs, considering the mitigating factor of the already inflicted confiscation of goods containing prohibited items. The appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed of, maintaining the fine at Rs. 50,000 and upholding the decision on confiscation while modifying the penalty amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure of imported goods containing prohibited items
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty
3. Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)
4. Quantum of penalty and fine determination

Seizure of imported goods containing prohibited items:
The appellant imported material declared as Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) but concealed old and used diesel engines behind the scrap. Customs officers discovered this during examination, leading to the seizure of the goods. The appellant admitted the engines were not allowed to be freely imported, and the market value was estimated at Rs. 14,28,702. The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the engines and a portion of the scrap, imposing penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act.

Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty:
The Additional Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the diesel engines and a portion of the HMS, along with imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 on the appellant. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision but reduced the penalty to Rs. 7 lakhs while maintaining the fine at Rs. 50,000. The appellant sought to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, conceding to the confiscation of goods but challenging the quantum of fine and penalty.

Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals):
In the present appeal, the appellant requested to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the confiscation of goods but argued that the fine in lieu of confiscation was unsustainable, and the penalty imposed was harsh. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the penalty and fine imposed by the lower authorities.

Quantum of penalty and fine determination:
The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the appellant was not fairly determined by the lower authorities. While the appellant had admitted to rendering the goods liable for confiscation, the Tribunal noted that the penalty should consider the mitigating factor of the already inflicted confiscation. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 4.00 lakhs, considering the circumstances of the case. With this modification, the Tribunal sustained the impugned order and disposed of the appeal.

---