Page 311 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 957
Penalty (Contd.)
— Quantum of - Appellant, a student pursuing Hotel Management courses
after completing his graduation, unknowingly used by his cousin and
other person by giving them offer of free tour of Hong Kong - Appellant
also signed the documents of bank accounts in connection of company in
the name of Moral Colour Limited at Hong Kong - Appellant was an
adult aged about 22 years - Thus it cannot be said that appellant was of
tender age and innocent - No record that appellant knowingly did the
acts of omission and commission during his pleasure trip to Hong Kong -
However, appellant was paid about ` 20,000 by cousin brothers and thus
appellant lured in signing various documents for opening of bank
account in connection with the company, without much understanding
the consequences - Penalty rightly imposed however, excessive - Penalty
reduced from ` 1,00, 000 to ` 25,000 - Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962
— Aman Badhwar v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) ............ 298
— Reduction of - Fraudulent import of chemicals - Shri Naresh M. Dudhela
arranging various IECs including that of M/s. Ravi Enterprises for
monetary consideration and receiving consideration of 1.5% of value in
return - Since, no specific allegations of his role other than arranging for
IEC of M/s. Ravi Enterprises, brought on record, case requires
reconsideration of quantum of penalty - Penalty imposed reduced to
` 25,000 - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — Naresh Dudhela v. Commissioner
of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II (Tri. - Mumbai) ...................... 881
— Respondent 2 viz. Shri Santosh Nair working for foreign suppliers as
Indian representative and issued Proforma Invoice as instructed by his
principal - Proforma issued by Respondent 2 not even the basis for filing
the import documents and, therefore, not relevant for imposition of
penalty - In fact said Proforma invoice never the part of the import
documentation, though it was part of negotiation documents between the
foreign supplier and the Importer in India - Respondent 2 not abetted in
the evasion of the Customs duty by misdeclaring the value for purpose of
imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of Customs Act,
1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Imp.), ACC, Mumbai v. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd. (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 878
— under FERA - Seizure of Indian currency - No evidence or material placed
on record showing that appellant received any amount by order or on
behalf of any person resident outside India - Neither the Adjudicating
Authority (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate) nor the appellate
authority (Special Director, Appeals) applied their minds on the question
whether the statement made by Ashish Jain is voluntary in view of its
retraction on the very next day - Tribunal although accepted that
statement made by Ashish Jain had no evidentiary value and yet upheld
the Appellate Order - Statement of Ashish Jain not to be relied upon
having been retracted on the very next day and being very vague and
bereft of any particulars, inasmuch as, it did not name or describe any
person from whom funds had been received and whom the said funds
had been distributed to - Statement also not corroborated by other
material - Consequently, appellant could not be held guilty for violation
of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act,
1973 on the sole basis of such statement - Confiscation of the amount of `
7,95,000 from the office of the appellant unsustainable and liable to be
returned to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
as per Rule 8 of Foreign Exchange Management (Encashment of Draft,
Cheque, Instrument and Payment of Interest) Rules, 2000 — Manak Kala v.
Union of India (Del.) ................................... 701
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  311