TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sought to be evaded in terms of Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and also for non-imposition of any penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 Brief facts of the appeal are that the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, vide Order-in-Original No.27/2014 dated 28.03.2014 had confiscated the import consignment of 645 Bales (107806 Sq.Mtrs.) of varieties of fabrics covered under the Bill of Entry No. 6507000 dated 10.04.2012 filed by M/s. Roshan Overseas for having been imported by misdeclaration, misclassification and undervaluation contravening the provisions of Section 111(m) of Custom Act, 1962. 2.2 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority had found that most of the imported cargo as mis-declared and mis-classified resulting in u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... text as above clearly shows that the Adjudicating Authority does not have any discretion as to the quantum of penalty imposed under Section 114A, ibid, which is a mandatory penalty equal to the duty so demanded under the said Act. iii. That the Adjudicating Authority should not have imposed less penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 which is less than the differential duty determined relying on the judgement passed by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors Vs. UOI [2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that no discretion is available to the Adjudicating Authority on quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has also filed an appeal i.e, C/42231/2014 against the same impugned order dated 28.03.2014 which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide F.O.No. 40413/2025 dated 01.04.2025. 6. We have perused the impugned Order-in-Original No. 27/2014 dated 28.03.2014 and other connected records and also the case laws relied upon. 7. The allegations against the importer include mis-declaration, misclassification and undervaluation of the imported goods. The importer in his written reply has contended that the imported consignment was asked to be examined on the First Check Basis and that they have not opted for self-assessment basis. The basic contention of the Department is that the Adjudicating Authority should not have imposed less penalty than the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees,] [ Substituted by Act 14 of 2001, Section 107, for certain words (w.e.f. 11.5.2001).] whichever is the greater; [(iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereinafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees] [Inserted by Act 36 of 1973, Section 3 (w.e.f. 1.9.1973). ],[whichever is the greater; (iv) in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Provided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available subject to the condition that the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso: Provided also that where the duty or interest determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty or interest as reduced of increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account: Provided also that in a case where the duty or interest determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court,....