Penalty upheld for diversion of imported goods in 100% Export Oriented Unit case

The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, accused of orchestrating the diversion of imported goods meant for a 100% Export Oriented Unit, contested the findings but failed to refute the employee's statement implicating them in fraudulent activities. The tribunal found the penalty justified, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. Judgment was pronounced on December 8, 2016.

---

---

Issues: Penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the absence of the appellant, the appeal was considered for disposal. The issue at hand revolves around the appellant being deemed the mastermind behind the diversion of imported goods meant for a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The adjudicating authority found the appellant to be the executive officer orchestrating the misuse of EOU status for unauthorized activities. The appellant contested the findings, claiming they did not benefit from the EOU and challenging the legality of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, the authority's clear finding, based on an employee's statement implicating the appellant in directing fraudulent activities, rendered the appellant's arguments inconsequential. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the penalty, deeming the order legally sound and devoid of flaws. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lacking merit, with the judgment pronounced on December 8, 2016.

---