2004 (5) TMI 225 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties on appellants for duty evasion under DEEC Scheme.
2. Involvement of appellants in import of goods and subsequent sale in domestic market.
3. Applicability of Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act in penalty imposition.
4. Role of appellants as license brokers and their liability in duty evasion conspiracy.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the imposition of penalties on appellants for evading duty under the DEEC Scheme by importing goods and selling them in the domestic market without fulfilling the export obligation. The duty evasion amounted to approximately Rs. 55 lakhs, and each appellant was found to be a part player in the evasion scheme.

2. The first appellant, Shri Nandalal Kishandas Khemani, was penalized for his involvement as the importer of the goods through his proprietary firm. Despite claiming innocence and being a broker, he was found to have a clear role in obtaining licenses and importing goods. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 15 lakhs considering his pleas, but no variation in the duty demand was made.

3. In the case of the second appellant, Shri Naresh A. Shah, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. His defense that he had not dealt with the imported goods was dismissed as he was involved in trading DEEC licenses and part of a conspiracy to evade duty. The judgment emphasized common liability in conspiracy cases, irrespective of the specific role played by each party.

4. The third appellant, Shri Mahesh D. Ganatra, faced similar allegations as a license broker involved in the evasion scheme. His argument that he was not liable under the Customs Act due to his role as a broker was rejected. The judgment highlighted his substantial financial gain from the illegal dealings, leading to the affirmation of the penalty imposed on him.

In conclusion, the penalty on Shri Nandalal Kishandas Khemani was reduced, while the penalties on Shri Naresh A. Shah and Shri Mahesh D. Ganatra were upheld. The judgment underscored the common liability in conspiracy cases and the significant role of each appellant in the duty evasion scheme, leading to the rejection of their appeals.