2008 (8) TMI 130 - AT - Customs

Appellant, steno typist allegation of abetment in fraud export of sub-standard items showing higher value of goods to get higher amount of drawback she has given detailed account of the entire activities starting from procurement of goods to export of goods, maintenance of bank accounts etc. - Contention of appellant that she is just a steno typist and she has to follow employer s order, is not acceptable - Since appellant had committed the crime, immunity from penalty cannot be granted

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal was made against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, who was a steno typist, became the proprietor of a new firm named M/s. Bhai Bhim Raj Trading House, which was involved in export fraud. The Commissioner held that the appellant, along with two others, engaged in exporting sub-standard garments at inflated values to claim drawback amounts. The Commissioner ordered the recovery of the drawback and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant.

The appellant contended that she was merely an employee who followed the instructions of her employer and was not involved in the fraudulent activities. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellant had full knowledge of the fraudulent export activities and provided detailed accounts of the operations. The appellant's voluntary statement also revealed her involvement in the entire process from procurement to export.

After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellant was aware of the fraudulent activities and her defense of being coerced by her employer was not accepted. The Tribunal noted that even if an employee follows the employer's orders in committing a crime, they are not immune from penal consequences. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's involvement in the offense.

However, considering the appellant's poor financial status and the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty imposed from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The appeal was partly allowed, and the reduced penalty amount was finalized at Rs. 2 lakhs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's involvement in the fraudulent activities despite her claims of coercion by the employer. The penalty was reduced based on the appellant's financial situation, but her liability for the offense was established and upheld.