2005 (9) TMI 474 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting mis-declaration of goods' value.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Allegations:
The case involved the penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs imposed on the appellants for aiding mis-declaration of goods' value under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The export consignments of Printed Circuit Boards were detained by the Officers of Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch of New Customs House, Bombay, belonging to M/s. Hari Impex. The appellant was accused of aiding and abetting mis-declaration, leading to excessive drawback claims.

2. Appellant's Contention:
The appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove his knowledge of the over-valuation of goods. The statements of co-noticees did not implicate the appellant directly. The appellant's role was limited to handling packing and documents, for which he charged a commission. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions to support his argument.

3. Department's Stand:
The Department contended that statements of Shri Raghavan indicated the appellant's involvement in the over-invoicing scheme. Shri Mukul Mehta, the appellant, was alleged to have knowledge of the scheme and charged high commissions accordingly. However, there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the mis-declaration.

4. Adjudication and Tribunal Decision:
The adjudicating authority relied on statements of witnesses but failed to establish the appellant's direct involvement in the mis-declaration. The tribunal observed that doubt, without concrete evidence, cannot lead to a penalty. The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant, and the penalty was set aside.

5. Difference of Opinion:
A member of the tribunal disagreed with setting aside the penalty, suggesting a reduction to Rs. 1 Lakh from the original Rs. 5 Lakhs. The difference of opinion was referred to the Honorable President for resolution.

6. Final Decision:
The Vice-President heard both sides and agreed with the Member (Judicial) that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. Lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the mis-declaration led to the setting aside of the penalty. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief based on the majority order.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, arguments, and decisions made regarding the penalty imposed under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting mis-declaration of goods' value.