ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Vice President
1. Since the appeal is not contested on merits, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of fine and penalty and with the consent of parties take up the appeal itself today for disposal.
2. Shri Thyagarajan, the learned Counsel submits that the appellant is not contesting the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Tiruchi, dated 6-10-1994 confiscating the second-hand off-set printing machines imported by the appellant under the provisions of the Customs Act but would only plead that the quantum of fine and penalty is very high and exorbitant. The learned Counsel submitted that in respect of identical imports in the same place, the learned Collector passed an order of adjudication on the same day levying only a fine of Rs. 7,500 in lieu of confiscation besides a penalty of Rs. 5,000 in respect of the imports by M/s. Shree Palaniappa Offset Printers, Sivakasi. The learned Counsel submitted that in the present case under appeal the value is only Rs. 11,78,064 and there is no valid reason of justification for the learned Collector adopting a different standard in levying the quantum of fine and penalty in respect of two similarly placed importers.
3. Shri Thyagaraj, the learned SDR went through the impugned order and also the order passed by the learned Collector on the same day in respect of another importer namely M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers, in both the cases the value being more or less the same and submitted that similar reduction in the present case may also be given as otherwise the two orders of the learned Collector on the same issue would be irreconcilable in the matter of fine and penalty.
4. I have considered the submissions made before me. The impugned order is passed on 6-10-1994. On the same day, the learned Collector has passed an order of adjudication in respect of other importer, namely M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers at the same place and levying only a fine of Rs. 7,500 and penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the importer. On going through that order dated 6-10-1994 in C. No. VIII /10/22/94-Cus. Adj., I find that the wording and the reasonings are identical and verbatim as the wording in the present impugned order. I further note that the goods imported are identical, from the same country by importers from the same place. In such a situation, I should confess that I find it difficult to appreciate as to how there is such a substantial difference in the quantum of fine and penalty between the two cases. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel, persons similarly placed cannot be treated dissimilarly and this is the underlying spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contravention in the present case and in the case of Palaniappa Offset Printers being identical, the adjudicating authority cannot without any justification adopt a different yardstick in meting out the penal consequences by fixing the quantum of fine and penalty in one case which is far at variance with the one in another case. It is also well settled by the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court that even in the matter of penalty in the nature of the breach and contravention between two persons in a similar or identical cannot be discriminated against the other in regard to the quantum of fine or penalty.
5. I, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the view taken by the learned Collector (Appeals) in an identical import relating to M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers at the same place for the same value the quantum of fine and penalty would call for modification. To a specific query to the learned SDR, it was submitted that he has no instructions or information as to whether any appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the learned Collector dated 6-10-1994 relating to M/s. Palaniappa Offset Printers relied upon by the learned Counsel. In the above circumstances, I reduce the fine to Rs. 7,500 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) and the penalty to Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) as has been done by the learned Collector in the case of Palaniappa Offset Printers. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
