TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenging the said order, the Revenue has preferred the above appeals, which has been admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in reducing the penalty amount which was imposed as an equivalent amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding the penalty equal to duty imposable under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 as the Maximum penalty which can be reduced by discretion? 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director of the company which is contrary to Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962?" 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be imposed on the Managing Director of the Company under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 5. The respondent has filed his reply to the show cause notice and on adjudication, the Original Authority, by order dated 14-10-1999, confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice and held that the imported sea mammals were classifiable under CTH 0106 and demanded duty of Rs. 45,71,951/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act read with proviso to Section 28(1) along with interest. Further, the imported sea mammals were confiscated under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Customs Act and were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 45,71,951/-, i.e., equivalent to the amount of duty, was also imposed under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....972 and also produced a copy of the challan dated 27-10-1993 for remittance of the registration fee issued by the Central Zoo Authority (CAZ), New Delhi. Further, it is seen that the import licence issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade dated 20-6-1994 was re-validated up to 31-5-1998. During the course of investigation by the Department, clarification was sought for from the Additional Inspector General (Wild Life) in the Ministry of Environment and Forest. In pursuance to such request, the said Authority, by communication dated 21-7-1998, clarified that the respondent/importer was a "Zoo" and the certificate issued by the Deputy Director Wild Life (Protection) was valid. Once again the Department addressed the Member Secretary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been pointed out by the Department that the entire importation has been handled by the Managing Director of the company and all the correspondences between various Authorities were personally handled by the Managing Director and therefore, he was fully aware that the firm had imported the subject goods. Therefore, he cannot plead ignorance of the facts. Further more, the respondent had not questioned the order of confiscation or the imposition of duty. Thus, the order of confiscation has attained finality and there is no discretion vested under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and there is no requirement to record a finding that there has been any wilful mis-statement or concealment or suppression of facts, as is found under Section 114A ....