Customs penalty for abetment in firm's import offence upheld where second-hand looms were misdeclared and records were manipulated.

Penalty was sustained against both the firm and the partner for importing second-hand looms in breach of the EXIM Policy 2002-07 and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, after the authorities found the goods were older than declared and that the year markings had been manipulated. The import was treated as liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the partner was held liable under Section 112(a) for abetting the firm's import offence. Concurrent findings of deliberate fabrication of records were accepted, and no jurisdictional error was found in imposing penalty on both parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imposition of penalty on both the firm and the partner was justified for the import of second-hand looms in violation of the import restrictions.

Analysis: The imported looms were found to be older than declared, with manipulated year markings, and the import was held to be in breach of Para 2.17 of the EXIM Policy 2002-07 and Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the partner, having abetted the import in the firm's name, attracted liability under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The concurrent findings of the authorities below and the Tribunal showed deliberate fabrication of records and no jurisdictional error in levying penalty on both the firm and the partner.

Conclusion: The imposition of penalty on both the firm and the partner was upheld as justified.

Ratio Decidendi: A partner who abets an import offence committed in the firm's name is liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, in addition to the firm's liability.

---