ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The appeal taken up for disposal on the ground that only the fine and penalty were disputed by the appellant.
2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has found that the appellant imported seeds of Egyptian clover, but declared the goods to be amaranthus seeds. He therefore ordered confiscation of the two consignments totally valued at Rs. 1.02 crores and permitted it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs on the appellant.
3. The counsel for the appellant does not deny that the goods that it imported were clover seeds which were misdeclared as amaranthus seeds. He does not deny that the import of amaranthus seeds was permitted while that the cloves was not, and that the amaranthus seeds were exempted by notification whereas the clover seeds not. He however asks for reduction in the redemption fine and penalty on the ground that the similarly situated appellants had been granted some reduction.
4. The “similarly situated” appellant that he refers to are Swift Seed International & Hoshiar Purian-Di Hatti vs. CC. In disposing of their appeal, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine by half. The Tribunal has, in that case, found that with regard with the charge of misdeclaration there was some extenuating circumstances. We are not able to find any extenuating circumstances in the case before us. Finally, in the case before the Tribunal, there was no attempt to evade duty that has been admitted before us. It is well to bear in mind the fact that in such matters on fine and penalty it is difficult, if not impossible, to two case that are identical so that it can be said that the quantum of punishment in one case will rigidly and inflexibly apply to the other. In the case before us, in the light of what is clearly a deliberate attempt to defraud the department and mislead its officers, we find no ground for leniency.
5. Appeal dismissed.