Penalty for fraudulent drawback claim requires proof of personal involvement; mere partnership status is not enough, while the organiser's penalty was upheld.

Penalty for a fraudulent drawback claim cannot be sustained against partners merely because they are partners of the firm; specific material showing personal involvement, participation, or assistance in the offending transaction is required. On the facts, the record contained no concrete finding or evidence against two partners, so the penalties against them were set aside. By contrast, the partner identified as having masterminded and arranged the fraudulent drawback claim, with the manager's assistance, was found properly liable and the penalty against him was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalties could be sustained against partners of the firm in the absence of specific findings or evidence showing their involvement in the fraudulent drawback claim; (ii) whether the penalty imposed on the partner found to have arranged the fraudulent drawback claim was justified.

Issue (i): Whether penalties could be sustained against partners of the firm in the absence of specific findings or evidence showing their involvement in the fraudulent drawback claim.

Analysis: The order recorded no specific act against the two partners and did not attribute any concrete participation to them in the fraudulent claim of drawback. The finding of liability was based only on their status as partners, while the record indicated that the transaction was conducted by other persons connected with the firm. In the absence of material showing their involvement in the alleged fraud, mere partnership was not enough to justify penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the two partners was unsustainable and was set aside, in their favour.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the partner found to have arranged the fraudulent drawback claim was justified.

Analysis: The order specifically identified one partner as the person who masterminded and arranged the fraudulent drawback claim, with assistance from the manager of the firm. The material on record supported his central role in the transaction, and no ground was made out for reduction of the penalty having regard to the nature of the misconduct and the amount involved.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the concerned partner was upheld, against him.

Final Conclusion: The tribunal interfered only to the extent of deleting the penalties imposed on the two partners against whom no specific involvement was proved, while maintaining the penalty on the partner found to have orchestrated the fraudulent drawback claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for a fraudulent drawback claim cannot be sustained against a partner merely on the basis of partnership status unless there is specific material showing personal involvement, participation, or assistance in the offending transaction.

---