2025 (1) TMI 746 - AT - Customs

CESTAT sets aside enhanced penalty for procedural lapses without revenue implications or mala fide intent

CESTAT Kolkata-AT allowed the appeal and set aside the enhanced penalty imposed by Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant failed to submit required ... Enhancement of penalty - failure to submit the required documents within the stipulated time period - contravention of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011 - HELD THAT:- The appellant could not submit some of the documents required for finalisation of the provisional assessment because of the various appeals pending before the Tribunals and High Courts on the same issue. Thus, the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay in submission of the documents. The ld. adjudicating authority has considered the issue and imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- for the violations, if any, committed by the appellant. It is observed that this penalty is sufficient for the procedural violations committed by the appellant. Similar view has been taken by this tribunal and a lesser penalty has been confirmed on such procedural violations - In the case of M/S ESSAR OIL LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2015 (5) TMI 942 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], it was held by the Tribunal that when there is some delay in furnishing the documents and there is no revenue implication, penalty is not called for. The penalty of Rs.15,000/- imposed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given adequate reason for enhancing the penalty from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of each of the 20 Bills of Entry, for the delay in submission of the documents. Conclusion - Procedural lapses without revenue loss or mala fide intent should not attract severe penalties. The enhanced penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and the original penalty of Rs. 15,000/- restored concluding that it was adequate for the procedural violation. The enhanced penalty set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether imposition of penalty under Regulation 5 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011 is attracted for non-submission of original/bank-signed documents within the one-month period stipulated by Regulation 3(3) where provisional assessment was allowed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. If penalty is attracted, what is the permissible exercise of discretion as to quantum where Regulation 5 provides that penalty 'may extend to Rs.50,000/-'. 3. Whether enhancement of a nominal penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the maximum permissible amount per Bill of Entry is justified where (a) many Bills had been finalized, (b) further delay was attributable in part to parallel litigation, and (c) there was no revenue implication established by the department. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Attractiveness of penalty for failure to submit documents within the one-month period (Regulation 3(3) and Regulation 5) Legal framework: Regulation 3(3) requires the bond executed for provisional assessment to contain an undertaking to produce documents/information 'within one month or within such extended period as the proper officer may allow' and to pay any deficiency between provisional and final duty. Regulation 5 prescribes penalty for contravention of these Regulations, providing that the penalty 'may extend to Rs.50,000/-'. Provisional assessment was permitted under Section 18 of the Customs Act pending production of documents. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal has previously considered delay in furnishing documents and looked to the presence or absence of revenue implication and mala fide conduct when imposing penalties (referenced decisions adopting lenient approach where delay was procedural and without revenue impact). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court interprets Regulation 3(3) and Regulation 5 conjunctively to mean that failure to submit documents within one month can attract penalty; however, Regulation 5 confers discretion as to quantum since it states penalty 'may extend to' a maximum. The existence of provisional assessment under Section 18 does not, by itself, convert every delay into a deliberate contravention warranting maximum penalty-contextual factors (revenue implication, bona fides, reasons for delay) are relevant to exercise of discretion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalty liability can arise for non-submission within prescribed time, but quantum is discretionary and must account for attendant circumstances, including revenue impact and bona fide reasons. Obiter - Observations on general policy of deterrence are contextual, not absolute. Conclusions: Penalty is legally permissible for non-submission within one month, but imposition of the maximum amount is not mandatory; the proper officer must exercise discretion considering surrounding facts. Issue 2 - Proper exercise of discretion as to quantum of penalty under Regulation 5 Legal framework: Regulation 5 confers a penal range up to Rs.50,000 per contravention. The decision to impose a particular quantum lies with the adjudicating authority and is subject to review for reasonableness. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on prior authorities where nominal penalties were confirmed or penalties waived where delay caused no revenue loss and there was no mala fide intention. Those authorities treated modest penalties as adequate for procedural lapses. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that discretion must be exercised proportionately. Relevant factors include: whether delay caused revenue loss, whether there was deliberate or mala fide conduct, the number of Bills already finalised, reasons for delay (including pending litigation), and comparable tribunal decisions. A penal sum intended merely as deterrence cannot be mechanically maximised where mitigating circumstances exist. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Quantum must be proportionate and determined after evaluation of facts; identical maximum penalties need not be imposed across similar defaults absent aggravating factors. Obiter - Reference to 'deterrence' as a policy aim is explanatory but not a justification for disproportionate enhancement without reasons. Conclusions: The adjudicating authority's imposition of a modest penalty (Rs.15,000 total, or the amount imposed by the original authority) was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion in the circumstances; enhancement to the maximum per pending Bill required reasoned justification which was absent. Issue 3 - Validity of enhancement by appellate authority where delay arose from pending litigation and no revenue implication was shown Legal framework: An appellate authority may modify penalty but must give adequate reasons demonstrating why a higher penalty is warranted. The authority's exercise of power is reviewable for absence of adequate reasoning or failure to apply legal standards. Precedent treatment: Tribunal decisions cited show that where delays were due to procedural difficulties or pending litigation and there was no revenue implication, modest or no penalty has been treated as appropriate; higher penalties have been disapproved in such contexts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that many Bills had been finalized and remaining delays were attributable in part to pending appeals before tribunals and high courts on the same issue; the department failed to demonstrate revenue loss or deliberate mala fide conduct. The appellate authority enhanced penalty to aggregate Rs.10,00,000 (by applying maximum to multiple Bills) without adequate reasoning explaining why deterrence required such increase despite mitigating factors. The Court views such enhancement as disproportionate and unsupported. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Enhancement of penalty on appeal requires cogent, case-specific reasons; unexplained enhancement in presence of mitigating circumstances is unsustainable. Obiter - Observations on what constitutes adequate reasons are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Conclusions: Enhancement by the appellate authority was set aside for lack of adequate reasoning and for being disproportionate given absence of revenue implication and presence of bona fide/justifiable delay; the original modest penalty was restored. Cross-references and Overall Conclusion Cross-reference: Issues 1-3 are interrelated - the legal availability of penalty (Issue 1) must be read with judicially guided discretionary application of quantum (Issue 2) and the requirement that appellate enhancement be reasoned and proportionate (Issue 3). Overall conclusion: The Court held that while Regulation 3(3) and Regulation 5 permit penalty for non-submission within one month, the adjudicating authority's modest penalty was appropriate in the factual matrix (no demonstrated revenue loss; delay partly due to pending litigation) and the appellate enhancement to the maximum aggregate amount was set aside for lack of adequate justification. The original penalty was restored.