Penalties Adjusted: Section 114AA Fine Reduced to Rs.5,00,000; Section 112 Penalty Confirmed; Personal Penalty Upheld.

The Tribunal modified the penalties by reducing the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000, acknowledging the excessive nature of the initial penalties. The penalty under Section 112 against the appellant-company was confirmed, partially allowing their appeal. However, the personal penalty on the second appellant was upheld, and their appeal was rejected. The appeals were disposed of with these modifications and confirmations.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of quantum of penalties u/s 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:
The case involved two appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, regarding smuggling of gold concealed in pressure washer pumps. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) discovered the gold pieces inside the imported pressure washer pumps. Subsequently, penalties were imposed on the appellant-company u/s 112 and u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a personal penalty on the second appellant. The appeals were initially rejected by the Commissioner (A) and remanded by the Tribunal for fresh decision. The final order confirmed the penalties but modified the amount imposed under Section 114AA.

The main issue focused on the excessive imposition of penalties, which the appellants argued was disproportionate given the absolute confiscation of the imported goods and gold. The Tribunal acknowledged the unjust nature of the penalties and decided to reduce the penalty u/s 114AA from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000, considering the circumstances. The penalty u/s 112 was confirmed against the appellant-company, partially allowing their appeal. However, the personal penalty on the second appellant Mr. K. Naser was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the penalties by reducing the amount imposed under Section 114AA, confirmed the penalty under Section 112 against the appellant-company, and rejected the appeal filed by the second appellant Mr. K. Naser. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---