CEGAT ensures equal fines for identical imports, upholding Article 14

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras addressed a case involving disparate fines and penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs on two importers for identical imports. Despite identical circumstances, the Collector applied significantly different fines and penalties. The Tribunal, emphasizing equal treatment under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, reduced the appellant's fine and penalty to align with those imposed on another importer in a similar situation. This decision aimed to ensure consistency and prevent discrimination in penalty imposition for comparable contraventions.

---

---

Issues: Disparity in the quantum of fine and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs on two similarly placed importers for identical imports.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a case where the appellant did not contest the impugned order confiscating second-hand off-set printing machines but challenged the high quantum of fine and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs. The appellant argued that the fine and penalty were excessive compared to a similar case involving M/s. Shree Palaniappa Offset Printers, Sivakasi, where a much lower fine and penalty were levied for identical imports. The Tribunal noted that the value of the goods in the present case was Rs. 11,78,064 and questioned the justification for the Collector applying different standards for fines and penalties for two importers in similar situations.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal observed that the impugned order and the order passed on the same day for M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers were identical in wording and reasoning. The goods were imported from the same country by importers at the same place, making it unreasonable to have a substantial difference in the quantum of fine and penalty between the two cases. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of treating persons similarly placed equally, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It cited Supreme Court precedents that prohibit discrimination in penalty imposition for similar contraventions.

In light of the similarities between the two cases, the Tribunal found it necessary to modify the quantum of fine and penalty. Despite the lack of information on any Departmental appeal against the order for M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers, the Tribunal reduced the fine to Rs. 7,500 and the penalty to Rs. 5,000, aligning them with the amounts imposed in the case of M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining consistency in penalty application for comparable cases.

---