2025 (1) TMI 1225 - HC - Customs

Customs penalty increased 100-fold from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.1 crore, appeal allowed without pre-deposit

M/s. Zeta International Versus Additional Commissioner of Customs and another

The HC addressed a customs valuation dispute involving printed circuit boards where penalty was dramatically increased from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.1,00,00,000 ... Valuation of export goods - Printed Circuit Boards -Rejection of declared value - redetermination of value - absolute confiscation - imposition of a significantly higher penalty in the subsequent Order-in-Original - HELD THAT:- This is not in dispute that there exists a statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner. This is also not in dispute that based on the same fact situation in the Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2020, penalty imposed was Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas in the second Order-in-Original it is enhanced to Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Delhi High Court in ASHISH BANSAL VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) [2023 (5) TMI 230 - DELHI HIGH COURT] opined that 'Considering that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'Tribunal'), we do not consider it apposite to examine the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order in this petition. However, given the manner in which the penalty has been computed and the financial condition of the petitioner, we consider it apposite to direct the Tribunal to consider the petitioner's appeal without any pre-deposit.' The petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2022 within three weeks from today. If the appeal is preferred within the aforesaid time, the appellate authority shall consider and decide it on merits and shall not dismiss it on the ground of delay - Considering the fact that the petitioner suffered a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in the previous round, which is enhanced to Rs.1,00,00,000/-, in the peculiar factual backdrop of this matter, it is deemed proper to permit the petitioner to pre-deposit on the basis of the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- before the appellate authority. However, this will not have any effect on merits of the matter and the appellate authority will be free to decide the appeal on its own merits. Conclusion - The petitioner is allowed to pre-deposit based on the initial penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-, rather than the enhanced amount, ensuring this does not affect the merits of the appeal. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the Chartered Engineers and Panchas whose reports formed the basis of the valuation and confiscation of goods.
Whether the imposition of a significantly higher penalty in the subsequent Order-in-Original was justified given the unchanged factual circumstances.
Whether the petitioner should be compelled to deposit the statutory amount before the appellate authority while appealing the Order-in-Original.
Whether the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy and if it should be exhausted before seeking relief through a writ petition.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISEntitlement to Cross-ExaminationThe petitioner sought to cross-examine the Chartered Engineers and Panchas involved in the valuation and examination of the Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs). The legal framework underpinning this request is rooted in principles of natural justice, which generally allow for the cross-examination of witnesses whose testimonies or reports are relied upon in administrative decisions.The Court noted that the respondent authority declined this request without providing adequate reasons, which could be seen as a breach of natural justice. However, the Court did not make a definitive ruling on this issue but instead focused on the procedural aspects related to the appeal process.Imposition of Higher PenaltyThe petitioner challenged the imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the subsequent Order-in-Original, arguing that it was disproportionate and unwarranted given that the factual circumstances had not changed since the first Order-in-Original, which imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Court recognized the discrepancy in penalties and considered it significant enough to warrant a review by the appellate authority, particularly in light of the Delhi High Court's decisions in similar cases, which emphasized fairness in penalty imposition.Statutory Deposit RequirementThe petitioner argued against the requirement to deposit the statutory amount before the appellate authority, citing financial constraints and the increased penalty. The Court, referencing the Delhi High Court's judgments, directed that the petitioner could proceed with the appeal by depositing the original penalty amount of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of the enhanced amount. This decision was made to ensure the petitioner's access to appellate review without undue financial burden.Exhaustion of Alternative RemediesThe Court acknowledged the existence of a statutory alternative remedy for the petitioner to appeal the Order-in-Original before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. It emphasized that the petitioner should utilize this remedy, and the Court's intervention was primarily to facilitate a fair appellate process without pre-deposit barriers.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court made several significant determinations:
The petitioner is permitted to appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2022 within three weeks, and the appellate authority should not dismiss the appeal on grounds of delay.
The petitioner is allowed to pre-deposit based on the initial penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-, rather than the enhanced amount, ensuring this does not affect the merits of the appeal.
The appellate authority is encouraged to expedite the appeal process, and if the petitioner's earlier appeal against the order dated 26.11.2021 is pending, both matters may be heard together.
The Court's direction to allow the appeal without the full pre-deposit highlights a commitment to ensuring access to justice and fairness in administrative penalty proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of proportionality in penalty imposition and adherence to natural justice principles, particularly in the context of cross-examination rights.