2007 (9) TMI 242 - AT - Customs

Excess drawback availed by exporter by over-invoicing of goods goods described as ladies trousers but which were actually found to be used and second-hand worn out garments - allegation on appellants of aiding and abetting the exporting firm revenue failed to establish that knowledge of over-invoicing was available with the appellants penalty on appellants u/s 114(iii) on charge of abetting firm in procuring fraudulent higher drawback, is not justified

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting in fraudulent drawback claims.
- Application of precedents regarding personal penalties on Customs House Agents (CHAs).
- Establishing knowledge of over-invoicing for penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, for aiding and abetting in fraudulent drawback claims by M/s. Zebra Textiles & Garments. The department alleged that the appellants assisted in claiming excess drawback by over-invoicing used garments as new ladies trousers. The Tribunal considered the case and set aside penalties imposed on the appellants in a similar matter involving a different exporting firm, citing that procedural infractions or violations do not necessarily prove knowledge or consent for penalty imposition.

2. The Tribunal referred to a precedent decision regarding penalties on Customs House Agents (CHAs), emphasizing that mere procedural deviations may lead to actions under other laws but do not establish knowledge or consent for penal action under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal highlighted that personal penalties should only be imposed if there is evidence of mala fide intentions. Therefore, based on the benefit of doubt, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants in the current case and allowed their appeals with consequential relief.

3. The judgment also addresses the efforts made by the department to establish the appellants' knowledge of over-invoicing, which is crucial for penalty imposition under Section 114(iii). Despite the department's arguments and reliance on a decision by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not prove the appellants' knowledge of over-invoicing. Drawing a distinction from the cited case where the High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of knowledge, the Tribunal concluded that in the present case, no such evidence was provided. Therefore, following the precedent and lack of evidence of knowledge, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision regarding penalty imposition and the importance of establishing knowledge or consent in such cases.