Tribunal reduces penalty under Customs Act for diamond substitution scheme

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 but reduced it from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. Despite the appellant's denial and efforts to distance himself, substantial evidence, including statements from co-accused and recovered documents, established his involvement in the scheme of substituting real diamonds with synthetic stones in export consignments. Mitigating factors led to the reduced penalty, recognizing the lack of direct evidence implicating the appellant compared to others involved.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on substitution of real diamonds with synthetic stones in export consignments.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the appellant for the substitution of real diamonds with synthetic stones in export consignments. The facts revealed that the consignments declared as containing cut and polished diamonds were found to actually contain synthetic stones. The appellant's employee, Jatin Shah, admitted to the substitution under instructions from the appellant. Further investigations implicated the appellant, with evidence such as recovery of hand-written slips with import-export code numbers from the appellant's office premises. Statements from other individuals involved also indicated that the appellant was behind the scheme of using front companies for exports. The appellant denied involvement, but the evidence against him was substantial.

The appellant argued that Jatin Shah's statement, as a co-accused, should not be the sole basis for the penalty. However, the Departmental Representative contended that Jatin Shah's unretracted statement was admissible evidence. The Tribunal found Jatin Shah's statement, along with other evidence like Ashok Parekh's statement and recovered documents, sufficient to establish the appellant's connection to the substitution scheme. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support the admissibility of such statements as evidence.

Considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it to Rs. 2 lakhs from Rs. 10 lakhs. Mitigating factors such as observations that others involved placed blame on the appellant without clear evidence of his direct involvement influenced the reduced penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged that while Ashok Parekh emerged as the principal offender, the appellant's role was still established. The decision was based on the substantial evidence linking the appellant to the substitution of diamonds with synthetic stones, despite his denial and attempt to distance himself from the illegal activity.

---