9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the reduction of personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 by CEGAT from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested the order of CEGAT reducing the personal penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that he was not directly involved in any illegal importation and had signed documents in good faith to assist a friend, thereby should not be subjected to penalties. The petitioner deemed the sustained penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs as excessive and harsh. 2. The case involved the importation of defective sheets/coils under two bills of lading, leading to discrepancies in quantity and price. The petitioner, in his statement, claimed innocence, stating he signed documents at the request of a friend without full awareness of the firm's existence or the import process. Despite opening a bank account for the non-existent entity, the petitioner maintained he was not actively involved in the operations. 3. Following a show cause notice, the Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of goods and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, including a Rs. 10 lakh penalty on the petitioner. Upon appeal, CEGAT upheld the decision but reduced the petitioner's penalty to Rs. 7.5 lakhs, prompting the present challenge. 4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's actions were not intentional and he lacked knowledge of the misdeclarations. It was emphasized that the petitioner's role was overshadowed by the mastermind, Mr. Vinodkumar Jatia, and thus, the penalty should be reduced or waived based on the circumstances. 5. The court, after considering the arguments, found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. It was established that the petitioner knowingly signed declarations and facilitated misleading practices to clear goods under a non-existent entity. Despite Mr. Jatia's involvement in subsequent actions, the petitioner's active participation in deceptive practices was deemed deplorable, justifying the penalty imposed. 6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision to maintain the penalty at Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The court highlighted the petitioner's conscious involvement in misleading customs authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 7. In conclusion, the court discharged the rule without costs, affirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
