Page 113 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) v. TRINETRA IMPEX PVT. LTD. 335

force under this Act or any other law for the time being in
force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five
thousand rupees, whichever is the greater;
(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods,
subject to the provisions of Section 114A, to a penalty not ex-
ceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five
thousand rupees, whichever is higher :
Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (8) of Sec-
tion 28 and the interest payable thereon under Section 28AA is paid within
thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper of-
ficer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such
person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the penalty so de-
termined.
(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 hereafter 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 thou-
sand rupees], whichever is the greater;
(iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (ii), to a
penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference
between the declared value and the value thereof or five thou-
sand rupees], whichever is the highest;
(v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a
penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such
goods or the difference between the declared value and the
value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the
highest.”
(emphasis supplied)
“Section 114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material. -
If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be
made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is
false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any busi-
ness for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding
five times the value of goods.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. At this juncture, before we go delving into the merits of the case, it
would be worthwhile to note that the Commissioner of Customs (General) had
also initiated proceedings against the CHA under the provisions of Customs
House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004, which culminated in passing of the
order dated 12-5-2015 whereby a punishment of forfeiture of security deposit of
Rs. 50,000 was imposed. The said order was impugned by the Customs Depart-
ment before the Court by way of appeal under Section 130 of the Act before this
Court titled as Commissioner of Customs (Import and General), New Delhi v. M/s.
Trinetra Impex Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA - 62/2017 [2018 (361) E.L.T. 363 (Del.)] on the
ground that the punishment was not proportionate and commensurate with the
allegations. The said appeal has been decided by an order dated 11-12-2017 and
the appeal of the Customs has been dismissed in limine. The observations of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  113