Tribunal upholds penalties for fraudulent export scheme, affirming active role of individuals.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, confirming penalties imposed on individuals for their roles in a fraudulent export scheme involving sub-standard goods. The appellants were found to have actively participated in the fraud, as evidenced by statements and material discovered during investigations. The judgment emphasized the legitimacy of penalties imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, despite allegations of double standards in the adjudication process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the exported goods and their declared value.
2. Role of the appellants in the fraudulent export scheme.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Alleged double standards in the adjudication process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Exported Goods and Their Declared Value:
The goods exported, branded as "DALBROS" Peter Engine Gaskets with a declared FOB value of Rs. 175/- per piece, were found to be of inferior quality with a market value of about Rs. 3/- per piece. The supporting manufacturer, M/s. TALBROS Inds. Ltd., Faridabad, denied supplying these gaskets, and it was revealed that the invoices were fake. The fraudulent nature of the export was further established by the fact that the Nodal Bank mentioned in the GR form, "Punjab Bank Ltd.," did not exist.

2. Role of the Appellants in the Fraudulent Export Scheme:
- Neeraj Kumar Jhanjhi: His involvement was established through the statements of various individuals and the discovery of gaskets at his premises. Despite retracting his statement, the evidence suggested that he, along with his brother and others, was actively engaged in exporting sub-standard gaskets under a drawback claim. His statement was corroborated by Rajesh Sharma, who admitted that they shared the drawback amount.

- Sanjay Agarwal: Although he did not sign the shipping documents, his involvement was confirmed through the statements of Deepak Lalwani and R.K. Saxena. He was aware of the fraudulent nature of the exports and facilitated the preparation of shipping documents and storage of gaskets. He received Rs. 50,000/- per container, indicating his active participation in the fraud.

3. Imposition of Penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Commissioner imposed penalties on various individuals involved in the fraud. Neeraj Kumar Jhanjhi and Sanjay Agarwal were penalized for their active abetment in the fraudulent exports. The penalties were based on substantial evidence, including corroborative statements and material found during investigations.

4. Alleged Double Standards in the Adjudication Process:
The appellants argued that the Commissioner adopted double standards by exonerating certain Customs officers despite evidence against them. However, the Tribunal noted that the exoneration of officers like R.K. Saxena, despite substantial evidence, did not invalidate the penalties imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that one wrong cannot justify another, and the evidence against the appellants was sufficient to uphold the penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, confirming the penalties imposed on Neeraj Kumar Jhanjhi and Sanjay Agarwal under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act for their roles in the fraudulent export scheme. The judgment highlighted the appellants' active involvement and abetment in the fraud, supported by corroborative evidence and detailed statements.

---