Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 293 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalties - Misuse of such MEIS Scrips/licenses by mis-classification of their export goods - Exports of quilts containing cotton/polyester - exemption Notification No. 24/2015 Customs dated 08/04/2015 - contravention of Foreign Trade Policy - issued Show Cause Notice - Seeking waiver of penalties on the ground of voluntarily deposited along with due interest - It is claimed that The Appellant has paid the differential amount immediately on raising objection by DRI on its own before issuance of SCN along with interest as it have absolute respect for the process of law and to avoid litigation. - Levy of penalties on Partners of the firm and its employees HELD THAT:- We find that the benefit having been reversed indicates wrongful use of MEIS Scheme and the conduct of differential treatment to same exports at different ports justifies the penalty as has been imposed by the department through well reasoned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, which is impugned before us. Proceedings by DGFT authorities under a different statute, cannot absolve appellant of penal consequences to be visited for their acts under Customs Act, 1962. We therefore, find the order is maintainable as far as the penalty of M/s. FASHION ACCESSORIES is concerned. Levy of penalty on Employees - HELD THAT:- The role of Jile Singh Manager export and Pardeep Arora Manager Shipping has been found to be not showing any knowledge and connivance, so as to warrant penalty u/s 114 (iii), 112 or 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been stated that their role in improper importation and exportation was not found. For the same reasons penalty u/s 117 cannot be imposed on them for stated passive role in the case as Section 117 being residuary penal provision requires “existence of provision” as well as no specific penalty for the same. We find that “remaining passive” has not been shown to be violation of any specific provision. Even otherwise it is not alleged that they drew any benefit for themselves by obeying directions of theirs master. Thus, the penalties on these appellants are dispensed with. Levy of penalty on Partners of the Firm - HELD THAT:- Since penalty has been imposed on firm, we do not consider it justified to impose separate penalty on the partner, same, therefore against the partner Shri. Anoop Thatia is dispensed with in the facts and circumstances of this matter. Ordered accordingly. Penalty on the firm is maintained. Appeals of individuals are allowed. Appeals are partly allowed.
|