Tribunal reduces penalty for export discrepancy, citing voluntary disclosure and lack of intentional suppression.

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, from Rs. 29,82,729 to Rs. 1 lakh each for the parties involved in a case concerning a discrepancy in an export consignment. The Tribunal considered the voluntary disclosure of the error and lack of intentional suppression, leading to a justified reduction in the penalty amount. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent and dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
Reduction of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the CESTAT's order dated 9-4-2013, which upheld the redemption amount but reduced the penalty imposed on the parties to Rs. 1 lakh each instead of Rs. 29,82,729, equivalent to the value of the confiscated goods. The main legal question raised in the appeal was whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the established suppression by the appellant during adjudication proceedings.

The export consignment was confiscated due to containing goods different from those mentioned in the shipping bills. Apart from a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh, a penalty of Rs. 29,82,179 was imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal, in reducing the penalty, noted that the discrepancy was voluntarily disclosed by the parties to the Customs authorities, and they requested to call back the consignment upon detecting a bona fide mistake. The Tribunal found no ill design or wilful intention to suppress the mistake, concluding that it was not a case for imposing the maximum penalty.

Section 114(iii) of the Act allows for a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods. The phrase "not exceeding the value of the goods" indicates that the maximum penalty cannot surpass the value of the goods, and the authority has the discretion to impose a lesser penalty. The Court held that since the adjudicating authority can impose a lesser penalty, the Tribunal also possesses the same power. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion, deemed not arbitrary or whimsical, was considered justifiable in reducing the penalty. Therefore, the substantial question was answered in favor of the respondent.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found the appeal lacking merit and dismissed it accordingly.

---