2016 (11) TMI 815 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - clandestine removal of goods - forgery of signatures of CHA on the bills of entry - Held that - As the appellant ran away from the investigation and has not cooperated during the course of investigation which shows that the conduct of the appellant that the appellant was involved in the committing fraud. Therefore, the provisions of section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 are applicable to the facts of the case and penalty under section 112 can be imposed on the appellant - I find that the appellant was getting a very small consideration in the huge fraud, therefore, I hold that the penalty imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority are on higher side. In that circumstance, the penalties imposed on the appellant are reduced to 50% in each case - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Penalties imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on fraudulent practices involving forged signatures and clearance of goods without payment of duty. Appellant's involvement in the fraud, abetment, and evasion of investigation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed nine appeals against penalties imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for clearing goods without duty payment through forged signatures. The investigation revealed importers used fraudulent means to clear goods without paying duties by forging Customs Officer signatures. The appellant, along with others, facilitated this fraud by providing blank and signed Bills of Entry (BOE) for a consideration. The appellant's role was corroborated by various statements, including the admission of receiving money for forging signatures. The appellant's evasion of investigation further indicated involvement in the fraud.

The appellant argued against the penalties, claiming lack of specific clauses invoked for penalty imposition and minimal involvement in the fraud. However, the Revenue contended the appellant played a significant role in the fraud, as confirmed by statements of involved parties. The Tribunal found the appellant to be a crucial link in the fraud, abetting and facilitating the evasion of duty payment through forged signatures and illegal arrangements.

Considering the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the appellant's integral role in the fraudulent practices. The penalties were reduced by 50% due to the appellant's minimal consideration in the overall fraud scheme. The appellant's evasion of investigation and involvement in the fraud led to the imposition of penalties under applicable sections of the Act. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.