9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 402 - HC - CustomsPenalty on the partnership firm as well as on the partners - held that - for the purpose of imposing a penalty the adjudicating authority under the Customs Act 1962 may in an appropriate case impose a penalty both upon a partnership firm as well as on its partners. Whether the facts and circumstances of a case warrant the imposition of a penalty both on a firm and its partners should be decided upon the facts of each case. - mater remanded to Tribunal.
Issues Involved:
1. Double jeopardy in the imposition of penalty. 2. Legality and justification of imposing penalties on both a partnership firm and its partners under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Double Jeopardy in the Imposition of Penalty The first issue addresses whether the imposition of a penalty on the appellant amounts to double jeopardy, given the findings by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, in his order dated 16-11-1989. The court examined the principles of double jeopardy and concluded that the penalties imposed by different authorities for distinct contraventions do not constitute double jeopardy. The penalties were based on different sets of facts and circumstances, and thus, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply. Issue 2: Legality and Justification of Imposing Penalties on Both a Partnership Firm and Its Partners The second issue concerns whether it is permissible and justified to impose penalties on both a partnership firm and its individual partners under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court delved into the legislative framework of the Customs Act, particularly Chapter XIV, which deals with the imposition of penalties. Key Points: 1. Section 111 and 112 of the Customs Act: These sections provide for the confiscation of goods and the imposition of penalties for various contraventions. Section 112 specifies that penalties can be imposed on any person involved in actions rendering goods liable for confiscation. 2. Section 140 of the Customs Act: This section deals with offences by companies and includes firms within its definition. It creates a deeming fiction whereby both the company (or firm) and its responsible officers (or partners) can be held liable for offences. 3. Supreme Court's Judgment in Standard Chartered Bank: The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, which clarified that the deeming fiction under Section 140 applies not only to criminal prosecutions but also to adjudication proceedings leading to the imposition of penalties. The term "offence" was interpreted broadly to include any act contrary to or forbidden by law, not limited to criminal wrongdoing. 4. Adjudication Mechanism: The Customs Act provides a detailed adjudicatory mechanism for the imposition of penalties, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The court emphasized that the adjudication process is not limited to the owner of the goods but extends to any person obligated to comply with the Act's provisions. 5. Implications for Partnerships: The court rejected the argument that a partnership firm, not being a juristic entity, cannot be penalized. It held that both the firm and its partners could be penalized, especially when the partners are responsible for the firm's business conduct. This interpretation aligns with the overall scheme and object of the Customs Act, which aims to ensure compliance and penalize contraventions effectively. 6. Judicial Precedents: The court addressed conflicting judgments from other High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court and previous decisions of the Bombay High Court, which had held that penalties on a firm preclude penalties on its partners. The court clarified that these judgments did not consider the Supreme Court's ruling in Standard Chartered Bank, which provides the correct legal position. Conclusion: The court concluded that it is legally permissible for the adjudicating authority under the Customs Act to impose penalties on both a partnership firm and its partners. The determination of whether penalties should be imposed on both should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The case was remanded to the tribunal for a fresh determination on this factual issue. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
