9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether penalty under Sec. 114 of the Customs Act is imposable on the appellant. Analysis: The appellant, a trader of ready-made garments, supplied goods to another party for export. The Customs Department alleged that the prices were inflated for claiming drawback, leading to penalties imposed on the appellant. The appellant argued that he did not contravene any law, did not benefit from the fraud, and should not be penalized. The appellant's advocate cited precedents where penalties were not imposed when abetment was not proven. Additionally, a dispute with the other party was mentioned as a reason for false implication. The Department contended that the appellant's involvement in preparing export documents with false prices indicated his participation in the offense. Section 114 of the Customs Act allows for penalties on those abetting such acts. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 113 and 114 of the Customs Act. It was established that the appellant supplied goods at a lower rate but assisted in preparing documents with inflated prices, aiding in misdeclaration for drawback claims. The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of abetting the offense and upheld the penalty imposition. Distinctions were drawn from the cited precedents, highlighting the appellant's direct involvement in the offense. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the penalty amount as excessive and reduced it to Rs. 50,000 in each appeal for the interest of justice. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition on the appellant for abetting the offense related to misdeclaration of prices for claiming drawback under the Customs Act. The penalty amount was reduced in consideration of the circumstances.
|
