2014 (6) TMI 125 - HC - Customs

Personal Penalty on employee - appellant submitted that the penalty has been imposed on the basis of statement of co-noticee without independent corroboration. It was also urged that in the absence of recording of the statement of the appellant, no penalty could be levied - Held that - It was not disputed that the appellant Shri Sushil Sharma was an employee as Assistant Commercial Manager and authorised signatory of M/s Fashion World International Ludhaina. He was looking after the work of import and export made by the above company. Investigation into the premises of the appellant company made by the department revealed that polyester fibre did not reach the factory premises. Shri Sushil Sharma had knowledge about non receipt of the goods in the factory. It was noticed by the Tribunal that since the appellant was fully involved in the affairs of the company, his role could not be ruled out in causing loss of duty to the customs. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from ₹ 6 lacs to ₹ 2 lacs in case of the appellant - appellant has not been able to show that the said findings are illegal, perverse or erroneous in any manner. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises - Decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Whether statement of co-noticee can be used against the appellant without any corroboration?
2. Whether penalty can be imposed merely on the statement of co-noticee in the absence of independent corroboration and the appellant's statement?
3. Whether the original order passed without supplying relied upon documents is legal?
4. Can an employee of a firm be penalized under section 112(b) of the Customs Act without corroboration of receipt of unlawful consideration?
5. Was the Tribunal justified in confirming the penalty without appreciating the lack of findings regarding the appellant's involvement?
6. Can a penalty be imposed arbitrarily under section 112(b) of the Customs Act without corroboration or evidence?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the imposition of a penalty based on the statement of a co-noticee without independent corroboration. The Tribunal found that the appellant, as an Assistant Commercial Manager of the firm, was fully involved in the company's affairs, including import and export activities. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's role in causing a loss of duty to customs could not be ruled out, leading to a reduction in the penalty from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that without recording his statement, no penalty could be levied. However, the Tribunal based its decision on the appellant's official involvement in customs and central excise documentation, as well as his knowledge of the non-receipt of goods in the factory. The Tribunal considered the totality of facts and circumstances, leading to the reduction of the penalty.

Issue 3:
The appellant questioned the legality of the original order passed without supplying relied upon documents. The Tribunal's findings were based on the appellant's deposition and involvement in the company's activities, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Issue 4:
Regarding the penalization of an employee without corroboration of receipt of unlawful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant's active involvement in the company's operations justified the penalty reduction based on his role in causing a loss of duty to customs.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal's decision to confirm the penalty without appreciating the lack of findings regarding the appellant's involvement was based on the appellant's recorded deposition and his significant role in the company's import and export activities, leading to the penalty reduction.

Issue 6:
The appellant contested the arbitrary imposition of a penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act without corroboration or evidence. However, the Tribunal's decision was supported by the appellant's official involvement in the company's customs and central excise documentation, justifying the penalty reduction.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's findings were not illegal, perverse, or erroneous. The decision to reduce the penalty from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs was based on the appellant's significant role in the company's affairs, particularly in import and export activities, justifying the imposition of the penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

← Previous Next →