Page 256 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

302 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

owner of M/s. Moral Colour Limited, Hong Kong. No notice has been issued to
Shri Heeralal Meena, though he is also stated to be one of the Directors of the
company M/s. Moral Colour Limited, Hong Kong. The Noticee is also not aware
whether any statement of Shri Heeralal Meena was recorded by the DRI. If one of
the namesake Director, namely Shri Heeralal Meena is not considered as the per-
son abetting fraudulent import on the same facts, how can the Noticee, who was
also namesake Director could be fastened with the abetment charges.
29. The Adjudicating Authority under the facts and circumstances held
that this appellant after getting some money, had opened the bank account in
Hang Seng Bank in the name of Moral Colour Limited and also became its Direc-
tor. Thus, the appellant has done acts of omission and commission and are liable
for penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act.
30. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges the facts that the appellant was
a student at the relevant time studying in the Institute of Hotel Management,
Bengaluru. The appellant unknowingly has been used by his cousin, Anirudh
Palta and Bhavuk Palta in connivance with the Neel Bhandari by giving them
offer of free tour of Hong Kong. The appellant due to lack of understanding and
being ignorant about the evil desire of his cousin unknowingly signed the docu-
ments of bank account in connection of the company in the name of Moral Col-
our Limited at Hong Kong. The appellant has nowhere deliberately or knowing-
ly helped any person in illegal transactions or in money laundering. Further, un-
der the facts and circumstances, the penalty is not imposable under Section
114AA as the said Section provides -
“If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be
made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is
false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any busi-
ness for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding
five times the value of goods.”
31. Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Department has
relied upon the impugned order.
32. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the appellant
had already studied upto graduation, and was further pursuing hotel manage-
ment courses. Thus, the appellant was an adult aged about 22 years. Thus, it
cannot be said that the appellant was of tender age and innocent. We further find
that it is not coming from the facts on record that the appellant knowingly did
the acts of omission and commission during his pleasure trip to Hong Kong.
However, the appellant was paid about Rs. 20,000/- by Palta Brothers and thus,
the appellant appears to have been lured in signing various documents for open-
ing of bank account in connection with the company, without much understand-
ing the consequences.
33. In this view of the matter, we hold that the penalty is rightly im-
posed on the appellant. However, we find that the penalty imposed is excessive.
Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part and reduce the penalty from Rs.
1,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential bene-
fits.
(Operative portion of the order already pronounced in open Court)

_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  272