2012 (9) TMI 499 - HC - Customs

Penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act Export and importing of same goods under different names - exemption under advance licence - Conspired with Customs Inspector - Whether Tribunal was right in law in confirming the penalty on the appellant when charges against M/s. MNS Exports have been set aside Held that - Mere fact that M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., have been absolved cannot be a ground to absolve the appellant herein as he is liable to be imposed penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act and the quantum of penalty awarded is also justified - appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Confirmation of penalty on the appellant by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act.
- Allegations of recycling imported goods by the appellant.
- Comparison of findings against the appellant and M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd.
- Legal interpretation of Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act.

Confirmation of Penalty:
The appellant appealed against the confirmation of a penalty of 5,00,000/- under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs in Original Order No. 31/2000/COMMR/CUS. ADJN., dated 13-9-2000. The appellant contested the penalty imposition, leading to the substantial question of law whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the penalty despite charges against M/s. MNS Exports being set aside.

Allegations of Recycling Goods:
The case involved allegations that the appellant, proprietor of M/s. Texworth International, conspired to export and reimport silk fabrics under false pretenses. The appellant obtained advance licenses and collaborated with Customs officials to manipulate the export and reimport of goods in the name of M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd. The appellant was accused of recycling imported goods to fulfill export quotas under the E.O.U. scheme.

Comparison of Findings:
The judgment highlighted that the findings against the appellant differed significantly from those against M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd. The appellant was implicated in a scheme involving the recycling of imported goods, distinct from the allegations against the said company. Despite M/s. MNS Exports being absolved of similar charges, the appellant's specific conduct and involvement in the recycling scheme justified the penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act.

Legal Interpretation of Section 112(b)(ii):
The legal interpretation of Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was crucial in determining the appellant's liability for the penalty. The provision stipulates penalties for improper importation of dutiable goods, not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. The judgment analyzed the application of this section to the appellant's case, emphasizing the need for proof of involvement in the proceedings leading to penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant, dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the appellant's active role in recycling imported goods and collaborating with Customs officials and M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd. The legal analysis of Section 112(b)(ii) supported the decision, highlighting the distinct findings against the appellant compared to the absolution of M/s. MNS Exports. The judgment underscored the importance of specific conduct and evidence in penalty imposition under the Customs Act.