Introduction
Proceedings under the Customs Act rarely remain confined to the importing entity alone. In cases involving alleged concealment or misdeclaration, customs authorities often proceed not only against the firm but also against the individuals connected with the transaction.
A recent decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) in Dilip Dhakan v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla in Customs Appeal No. 241 of 2012, vide order dated 08.05.2026, has examined this issue in the context of partnership firms. The case arose from DRI proceedings involving imports made through a SEZ entity, where memory cards were allegedly concealed inside consignments of refrigerators and televisions imported under a filed Bill of Entry. Penalties were imposed both upon the partnership firm and upon one of its partners under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act.
While the Hon’ble Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed upon the partner under Section 112(a), it still upheld a reduced penalty under Section 114AA after taking note of the statements recorded during investigation. The judgment revisits an issue that frequently arises in customs proceedings involving partnership concerns; whether a partner can continue to face separate penal consequences once the firm itself has already been penalised for the same transaction.
Background of the Dispute
The proceedings arose from DRI investigations into imports made through M/s Rodex International, a partnership firm operating from the Kandla Special Economic Zone. According to the department, intelligence inputs suggested that goods were being smuggled through a consignment imported in the name of the firm.
During examination of the container, customs authorities allegedly found SD memory cards concealed inside refrigerators imported along with televisions and other electronic goods. These memory cards had not been declared in the Bills of Entry filed before customs authorities.
Following investigation and adjudication proceedings, penalties were imposed upon multiple persons, including one of the partners of the importing firm. The appellant challenged the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
Penalty on Partnership Firms and Partners
One of the main issues before the Hon’ble tribunal was whether separate penalties could continue both against the partnership firm and against one of its partners for the same offense.
The appellant argued that once the firm itself had already been penalised, a separate penalty upon the partner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained. In support of this, reliance was placed upon several Gujarat High Court decisions which have consistently held that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity distinct from its partners unless the statute specifically creates such distinction.
The Hon’ble Tribunal accepted this contention and relied upon the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jai Prakash Motwani, where it was held that once a partnership firm has already been penalised, a separate penalty upon the partner would not be permissible.
The Hon’ble Tribunal also referred to CCE & C., Surat-II v. Mohammed Farookh Mohammed Ghani, where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court observed that a partnership firm is merely a collective name for its partners and does not possess a separate juristic identity like a company incorporated under statute. The Hon’ble High Court had further noted that where the legislature intends to treat firms and partners separately, it expressly provides for the same within the statute itself.
Applying these principles, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that once penalty had already been imposed upon the partnership firm, no separate penalty under Section 112(a) could continue against the appellant partner.
Independent Liability Under Section 114AA
However, the Hon’ble Tribunal took a different view when it came to the penalty imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. Unlike the penalty under Section 112(a), this penalty had been imposed specifically on the appellant based on the statements recorded during investigation. According to the Hon’ble Tribunal, the appellant had admitted that the imports were arranged in the name of Rodex International, that another individual had financed the transaction, and that he was to receive monetary benefit in relation to the imported goods and concealed memory cards.
The Hon’ble Tribunal also noted that these statements were never retracted during the proceedings. On this basis, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that while a separate penalty could not continue merely because the appellant was a partner of the firm, his own admissions and involvement in the transaction were sufficient to sustain liability under Section 114AA.
Once the department is able to show direct involvement in the transaction or knowledge of the alleged concealment, proceedings may still continue independently against the individual concerned.
Evidentiary Significance of Statements During Investigation
Another important aspect of the ruling concerns the evidentiary weight attached to statements recorded during DRI investigations. The Hon’ble Tribunal repeatedly relied upon the fact that the appellant’s admissions regarding the import arrangement and anticipated financial benefit were never withdrawn or retracted. This reflects a broader trend in customs enforcement proceedings where statements recorded during investigation frequently become central to establishing knowledge, intent and participation in the alleged contravention.
For importers, partnership firms and authorised signatories, the ruling serves as a reminder that statements made before customs authorities may have long-term implications in adjudication proceedings, particularly where such statements contain admissions concerning financial arrangements, beneficial ownership of goods or operational control over import transactions.
Proportionality in Fiscal Penalties
Although the Hon’ble Tribunal sustained liability under Section 114AA, it substantially reduced the quantum of penalty imposed upon the appellant. The Commissioner had originally imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakh. However, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that according to the appellant’s own statement, his expected financial gain from the transaction was limited to approximately Rs. 1 lakh. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Tribunal considered the original penalty disproportionate and reduced it to Rs. 2 lakh.
This part of the ruling is equally noteworthy because it demonstrates the continuing judicial emphasis on proportionality in fiscal adjudication. Appellate forums are increasingly examining whether the quantum of penalty bears a reasonable nexus to the role played by the noticee, the extent of participation and the financial benefit allegedly derived from the transaction.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The decision in Dilip Dhakan, clarifies the scope of individual liability under the Customs Act for partnership firms through four key takeaways. First, it protects against duplicative penal proceedings by reaffirming that a partnership firm and its partners cannot ordinarily face separate penalties for the same contravention. However, customs authorities can still proceed independently against individual partners if there is clear evidence of their conscious participation in fraudulent activities like using false documentation or concealment. Additionally, the ruling underscores the critical legal weight of unretracted statements recorded during DRI investigations, while simultaneously reflecting a growing judicial commitment to proportionality, meaning appellate forums are increasingly willing to intervene and reduce fiscal penalties that are excessive relative to the alleged actual role or benefit.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with dhwani.tandon@amlegals or hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com