2000 (6) TMI 654 - AT - Customs

Penalty on employees of company reducible when penalty also imposed on company - Clandestine removal

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty by Commissioner of Customs on three appellants for involvement in unauthorized removal of bonded stock of imported materials using duplicate keys.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the same impugned order where the Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakh each on the three appellants for their involvement in unauthorized activities related to bonded stock of imported materials. The facts of the case revolve around M/s. EAP Industries Ltd. importing raw materials kept in bonded godowns and tanks without payment of duty. Upon verification, it was discovered that the imported materials had been removed using duplicate keys, leading to the imposition of penalties. The appellants did not contest the shortages in the warehoused goods but pleaded innocence regarding the clandestine activities of the company.

The judgment highlights the statements and roles of the appellants in the unauthorized removal of bonded stock. The Managing Director of the company admitted shortages and agreed to pay duty but denied knowledge. The Works Secretary instructed the shifting of materials using duplicate keys, with evidence pointing to his involvement in the unauthorized activities. The Commissioner observed the involvement of another appellant, who was the brother-in-law of the company's Chairman, in the bonding and de-bonding process, despite being posted at the Head Office.

The Tribunal found that all three appellants were involved and had knowledge of the unauthorized removal of bonded goods using duplicate keys, bypassing Customs formalities. Despite the appellants' claims of lack of independent corroboration, the statements of various individuals and evidence supported their involvement. The penalties imposed on the appellants were reduced from Rs. 5.00 lakh to Rs. 25,000 each, considering their status as employees of the company. The penalties were upheld with the modification in quantum, while the appeal was otherwise rejected.