Technical breach in machine import warrants reduced penalties, and firm-plus-partner cannot face duplicate punishment for the same act.

Import of a second-hand machine followed by diversion to another actual user was treated as a technical lapse rather than a substantive contravention because the transferee was also an actual user engaged in similar work and no revenue loss or undue benefit was shown. Confiscation was not displaced, but the redemption fine and penalties were held excessive and required substantial reduction. The text also states that a partnership firm and its partner cannot be penalised simultaneously for the same contravention unless there is a distinct legal basis for separate punishment; accordingly, the simultaneous penalty was not sustained and the order was modified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import and diversion of a second-hand machine to another actual user amounted to a substantive contravention justifying confiscation and substantial redemption fine and penalties; (ii) whether penalty could be simultaneously imposed on a partnership firm and its partner for the same contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the import and diversion of a second-hand machine to another actual user amounted to a substantive contravention justifying confiscation and substantial redemption fine and penalties.

Analysis: The machine was imported by an actual user, and the transferee premises also belonged to an actual user engaged in similar work. The diversion of the machine to that premises was treated as a technical lapse rather than a contravention causing revenue loss or conferring undue benefit. In these circumstances, confiscation was not displaced, but the fine and penalties were considered excessive.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalties were liable to substantial reduction.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be simultaneously imposed on a partnership firm and its partner for the same contravention.

Analysis: It was accepted that settled law does not permit simultaneous penalty on a partnership firm and its partner for the same act in the absence of a distinct basis for separate punishment.

Conclusion: Simultaneous penalty on the firm and its partner was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified by reducing the redemption fine and the penalties, and the appeal of the partner was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the breach is merely technical and does not cause revenue loss or undue benefit, the punitive consequences may be moderated, and a firm and its partner should not be penalised simultaneously for the same contravention without a separate legal basis.

---