Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1005 - HC - CustomsPenaltry u/s 112(a) - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant had abetted and was liable to pay penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the quantum of penalty is justified - Misdeclaration of goods - Abatement for misdeclaration - Held that:- quantum of penalty imposed on the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. is not justified and is disproportionate. No doubt that the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. has abetted the offence of misdeclaration and is liable to pay penalty under Section 112(a). The statements recorded of the Secretary and the Chairman during the investigation clearly show that the Secretary and Chairman were well aware of the fact that the goods were sought to be misdeclared. It is not that the Secretary and Chairman were driven up the garden path unknowingly by the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. by the brochure. From the statements recorded, as extracted by the Commissioner of Customs, it is apparent that the Secretary and Chairman were well aware of the reason why the said system was being wrongly declared as an endoscopic system. They were fully aware that the system would only qualify for an exemption in case it was declared in a particular manner and words. They acted being fully aware of all the facts and it was a conscious and well informed decision. The actus reus was present and was motivated by a common goal and with a common purpose. All of them were aware as to why the system was being declared as an endoscopic system and the role played by each one was more or less similar and as culpable. It cannot be said that the Secretary played any lesser role than the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. Even if the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. had suggested misdeclaration of the equipment to save duty, the Secretary and the Chairman could have easily declined. The fact that the Secretary and the Chairman of M/s. CARE accepted the suggestion of the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. makes their role equal. The appellant is being punished as an abettor. The gravity of the role of the abettor and a well informed principal offender cannot be different. Where the degree of offence is same the scale of punishment should also be equal. Applying principle of parity of consequence, as all are ascribed the same role and responsibility, the scale of punishment/ penalty should also be the same - penalty imposed on the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. of Rs.25 lakhs is not justified. Applying the principle of parity, we are of the view that the appellant M/s. J. Mitra & Bros. should also be imposed the same penalty as that of the Chairman. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty under Section 112(a) from Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|