2007 (4) TMI 424 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act for participation in fraudulently obtaining DEPB licenses.

Analysis:
The appellants contested penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act for their involvement in obtaining DEPB licenses through fraudulent means. The Revenue alleged that the appellants participated in the fraud by signing applications for DEPBs related to specific Shipping Bill numbers. The appellants sought to rely on a Tribunal decision in a different case where the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, but the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning different DEPBs. The material on record established the appellants' role in obtaining DEPB licenses fraudulently, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the appellate Commissioner.

The adjudicating authority's findings highlighted the active involvement of the appellants in the fraud, with specific partners being directly implicated in signing applications for DEPBs. The appellants were not considered innocent transferees but active participants in the forgery scheme to acquire licenses for subsequent sale. Reference was made to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, emphasizing that those actively involved in fraud cannot be equated with innocent transferees. The judgment stressed that the guilty party must be held accountable for the fraud and its consequences, rejecting the notion of treating innocent and guilty parties equally.

Drawing from the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties on the appellants due to their established involvement in obtaining DEPB licenses through fraudulent means. The judgment emphasized that the appellants' active participation in the forgery scheme justified the penalties, aligning with the findings of the authorities below. Consequently, all appeals challenging the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act were dismissed, affirming the accountability of the appellants for their role in the fraudulent procurement of DEPB licenses.