(1.) HEARD Both sides.
(2.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The case facts have been narrated in detail in the order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial), therefore they need not be reiterated once again. The difference of opinion to resolve in the instant case as to whether the penalties as reduced by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) or the penalties confirmed by Hon'ble Member (Technical) are to be accepted.
(3.) THE penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Custom Act, 1962, which provides that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 112 or abets the doing or omission of such an act is liable to a penalty. The rough diamonds imported earlier are held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the action or omission is in claiming clearances of rough diamonds on the basis of forged licenses, and therefore the question is whether the appellants had any malafide intention in claiming clearances against the alleged forged licenses and whether they had any role in the forgery of licenses and further whether there are any extenuating circumstances warranting reduction in penalties imposed by learned Commissioner in the impugned order has to be examined. Admitted facts on the record are that: