2012 (10) TMI 43 - AT - Customs

Benefit of DEPB credit - allegation of overvaluation - Held that - proceedings against the exporter were dropped by this Tribunal relying on orders of RAMMAPATI EXPORTS versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA 2006 (8) TMI 16 - CESTAT, KOLKATA - once the charge against the exporter itself does not survive, the question of aiding and abetting also does not survive - the so-called new material/evidence not being relatable or relevant as found to uphold the charge of over-valuation, leads to the setting aside of the impugned Order and the notice. - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Appeal against the penalty imposed.
- Contention regarding aiding and abetting in alleged export.
- Analysis of Tribunal's findings in a related case.
- Setting aside of penalty against the present Appellant.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 112:
The Appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original imposing a penalty of Rs.10,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the export of glass-beads of inferior quality at an abnormally high price for claiming undue benefit. The proceedings led to the imposition of penalties, including the penalty against the present Appellant.

Appeal against the Penalty Imposed:
The Appellant contended that the proceedings against the exporter were dropped by the Tribunal in a related case, and the Department did not challenge that order. The Appellant argued that since the charge against the exporter did not survive, the question of aiding and abetting by the present Appellant should also not survive, making the penalty against them not imposable.

Contention Regarding Aiding and Abetting:
The Appellant's main argument was that since the charge against the exporter was dropped, the basis for imposing a penalty on the present Appellant for aiding and abetting the alleged export also ceased to exist. The Appellant highlighted that without the primary charge against the exporter, the penalty against them should not stand.

Analysis of Tribunal's Findings in a Related Case:
The Tribunal referred to its findings in a related case where it was observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge of overvaluation. The Tribunal also noted bias in the treatment received by the appellants. Based on these findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, indicating a lack of merit in the penalty imposition.

Setting Aside of Penalty Against the Present Appellant:
After careful consideration of the submissions and record, the Tribunal found that since the case against the exporter did not survive, the charge of aiding and abetting by the present Appellant also did not hold. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the present Appellant was deemed unwarranted, leading to the setting aside of the learned Commissioner's order and allowing the present appeal.