Tribunal Reduces Penalty to Rs.5,00,000 Due to Perishable Goods and No Profit Margin; Immediate Payment Required.

The Tribunal concluded by reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs.5,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. This decision was based on factors including the perishable nature of the goods, absence of profit margin, and the fact that the confiscated goods remained in departmental custody. The appellant was directed to pay the revised penalty immediately, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are mis-declaration of quantity of imported goods, imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, reduction of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and further reduction of penalty by the Tribunal.

Mis-declaration of Quantity of Imported Goods:
The case revolved around the mis-declaration of the quantity of cigarettes imported by the appellant. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had developed intelligence indicating mis-declaration by certain importers, leading to show cause proceedings and subsequent confiscation of the cigarettes.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The original order had imposed a penalty of Rs.50,00,000 on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine but reduced the penalty to Rs.10,00,000, citing reasons such as the perishable nature of the goods and absence of profit in the transaction.

Reduction of Penalty by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) took a lenient view in reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant, considering factors such as the perishable nature of the goods, lack of profit margin, and possible malafide intention. The penalty was reduced from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Further Reduction of Penalty by the Tribunal:
Upon review of the case records and the observations of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the Tribunal further reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000, emphasizing the absence of profit margin, the perishable nature of the goods, and the fact that the confiscated goods were still under the custody of the department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the penalty to Rs.5,00,000, which the appellant was directed to pay forthwith. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---