2025 (3) TMI 792 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Restores Original Penalty, Rejects Unjustified Increase Due to Lack of Appellant's Fault in Delay

M/s. Visa Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar

M/s. Visa Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Regulation 5 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011 was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the non-finalization of eight Bills of Entry. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in enhancing the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 4,00,000. Whether the Appellant was at fault for the delay in the finalization of the eight Bills of Entry.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Appropriateness of the Penalty Imposed by the Adjudicating Authority Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, particularly Regulation 5, which prescribes penalties for non-finalization of provisionally assessed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal referenced the precedent set in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar, where a lenient view was deemed appropriate under similar circumstances. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had taken a lenient view by imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000, which was considered reasonable given the circumstances. Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant had submitted all necessary documents for the finalization of the 33 Bills of Entry, and 25 had been finalized. The remaining eight were not finalized, but no defects were pointed out by the Department. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Jai Balaji case, emphasizing the absence of deliberate delay or mala fide intention by the Appellant. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument for a higher penalty but found it unsubstantiated as there was no evidence of fault on the Appellant's part. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the lenient penalty of Rs. 20,000 was appropriate and aligned with the precedent.2. Justification for the Enhanced Penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 5 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, which allows for a penalty of up to Rs. 50,000 per Bill of Entry for non-finalization. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide sufficient grounds for enhancing the penalty to Rs. 4,00,000, as the Appellant was not at fault for the non-finalization. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had complied with all requirements, and the delay in finalization was not attributable to them. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent from Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., emphasizing the lack of fault or mala fide intention by the Appellant. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument for a higher penalty, noting the absence of any deliberate delay or fault by the Appellant. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the enhanced penalty was unjustified and restored the original penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that penalties should be proportionate and based on the actual conduct and fault of the parties involved. In the absence of deliberate delay or mala fide intention, a lenient penalty is appropriate. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the Order-in-Original, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant was not at fault for the delay in finalizing the eight Bills of Entry.The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and ensuring that penalties are fair and justified, taking into account the conduct of the parties involved and any relevant legal precedents.