2011 (5) TMI 883 - HC - Customs

Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from perversity in the matter of reduction of penalty as regards the appellants? Held that - While it is true that there is no elaborate discussion in the impugned order of the Tribunal regarding the quantum of penalty and the proportion in which the same is reduced, in the background of the facts stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that impugned the quantum of penalty upheld by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. Insofar as the reduction of penalty in the case of M/s. BSL is concerned, the Tribunal has reduced the same to a large extent after recording specific findings as regards the extent of their involvement and as such, it is not possible to state that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any perversity in the matter of reduction of penalty as is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Perversity in the reduction of penalties by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification and proportionality of penalties imposed on the appellants.
3. Adherence to principles of natural justice and proper application of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Perversity in the reduction of penalties by the Appellate Tribunal:
The core issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal's order suffered from perversity in reducing penalties for the appellants. The Tribunal had reduced the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, who had initially levied significant penalties on various entities and individuals involved in the fraudulent import transactions. The Tribunal found that the penalties imposed were excessive and reduced them accordingly. However, the appellants contended that the reduction was not proportionate and lacked proper reasoning, especially compared to the main perpetrators of the fraud.

2. Justification and proportionality of penalties imposed on the appellants:
The appellants argued that the penalties imposed on them were excessive and disproportionate compared to those imposed on the main perpetrators of the fraud. They highlighted that the Director of M/s. Baroda Synthetics Ltd. (BSL), who orchestrated the fraud, had his penalty reduced from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, whereas the penalties on the appellants were only reduced from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellants argued that this disparity indicated an ad hoc approach and lacked consideration of the magnitude of their involvement and the value of the goods involved.

3. Adherence to principles of natural justice and proper application of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants contended that the Tribunal's order violated the principles of natural justice as it did not provide specific reasons for the quantum of penalties upheld or reduced. They also argued that the show cause notice did not clearly indicate whether the action was under clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act, which was necessary for a fair proceeding. The appellants cited the decision of the Madras High Court in B. Lakshmichand v. Government of India, emphasizing the need for clarity in penal actions.

Court's Findings:

Perversity in the Tribunal's Order:
The Court examined the Tribunal's decision and found that the Tribunal had indeed considered the evidence and the involvement of the appellants in the fraudulent transactions. The Tribunal had reduced the penalties based on the extent of involvement and the evidence presented. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalties was not perverse, as it was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.

Justification and Proportionality of Penalties:
The Court observed that the adjudicating authority had found active involvement of the appellants in the fraudulent transactions. The penalties were imposed based on the appellants' roles and the evidence of their participation. The Tribunal had reduced the penalties proportionately, considering the involvement of each party. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalties on the appellants, as the reduction was justified based on the evidence.

Principles of Natural Justice and Section 112:
The Court addressed the appellants' contention regarding the lack of specific reasons for the penalties and the clarity required under Section 112. The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the relevant factors and evidence, and the reduction in penalties was not arbitrary. The Court also noted that the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority's order had sufficiently indicated the appellants' involvement and the basis for the penalties.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order did not suffer from perversity or any violation of natural justice principles. The reduction in penalties was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the extent of involvement of the appellants. The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering the question in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The Registry was directed to place a copy of the judgment in each of the appeals.