9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disproportionate penalty imposed on co-accused in the same case. 2. Requantification of penalty based on assessable value. 3. Role differentiation between co-accused affecting penalty imposition. Issue 1: Disproportionate penalty imposed on co-accused: The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 7 lacs imposed on him, arguing that it was arbitrary and disproportionate compared to the Rs. 1,000 penalty imposed on the main importer. The appellant's counsel cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that penalties on conspirators should not be glaringly disproportionate. The appellant's representative referred to various legal precedents to support the argument of unfairness in penalty imposition on co-accused in the same case. Issue 2: Requantification of penalty based on assessable value: The Tribunal's remand order directed the requantification of the penalty imposed on the appellant based on the assessable value declared during import. The original assessable value was contested and revised during proceedings. The Commissioner was tasked with adjusting the penalty in line with the reassessed assessable value, leading to a reduction from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 7 lacs. The remand order limited the scope of penalty modification to maintain proportionality with the revised assessable value. Issue 3: Role differentiation between co-accused affecting penalty imposition: The Tribunal upheld the penalty variation between the main importer and the co-accused due to the differing roles played in the offense. The main importer was considered a name lender, while the co-accused was involved in the manipulation. The Commissioner's authority in the remand proceedings was restricted to requantifying the penalty based on the reassessed assessable value, without re-evaluating the entire case. The penalty reduction to Rs. 7 lacs for the co-accused was deemed appropriate and in line with the remand order, as the appellant did not challenge the remand decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed on the co-accused, considering the role differentiation and the requantification based on the assessable value. The Commissioner's decision to reduce the penalty to Rs. 7 lacs was found to be in conformity with the remand order, and the appeal against the penalty imposition was rejected.
|
