Amnesty settlement by the main offender does not erase penalty exposure where participation in the contravention is established.

An amnesty settlement by the main manufacturer did not automatically absolve a connected appellant from penalty, because the scheme did not extend to persons in his position and the record showed his participation in the contravention. The appellant therefore remained liable in principle. However, the Tribunal treated the original penalty as excessive in light of his status as a low-paid employee and the surrounding circumstances, and moderated the sanction to a nominal amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant could be absolved from penalty merely because the main manufacturer had settled its liability under the amnesty scheme, and (ii) whether the penalty imposed on the appellant required reduction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether the appellant could be absolved from penalty merely because the main manufacturer had settled its liability under the amnesty scheme.

Analysis: The scheme relied upon did not extend amnesty to persons placed in the appellant's position. The fact that the main offender had settled the dispute did not, by itself, prevent the appellant from being proceeded against where the record showed that his statements and the surrounding circumstances established his participation in the contravention.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to complete exoneration from penalty on the ground of settlement by the main manufacturer.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed on the appellant required reduction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Although culpability stood established, the appellant was a low-paid employee and the circumstances warranted moderation of the penal amount. The Tribunal balanced the established involvement against the appellant's financial position and considered the original penalty excessive in quantum.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld in principle but reduced from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 3,500.

Final Conclusion: The appellant remained liable to penalty for his role in the contravention, but the punishment was substantially scaled down to a nominal amount.

---