9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Allegation of abetment in importing illicit goods, imposition of penalty u/s 112(a)(i).
Summary: The appeal concerned the appellant being held to have abetted in the offence of importing illicit goods on behalf of a friend, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellant contended that he had no connection with the import of goods and thus penalty should not be imposed u/s 112(a)(i). The appellant argued that he merely allowed his friend to use his address for importing goods, believing they were licit. Despite his innocence, authorities held him responsible based on his address provision. The appellant cited a Bombay High Court judgment defining abetment and argued that the requirements of abetment were not met in his case, relying on recent rulings supporting his stance. The JDR contended that providing his address for the friend's business was enough to implicate the appellant in abetment. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish the appellant's abetment in the offence. The appellant acted in good faith, unaware of the illicit nature of the goods, and the abetment element was not proven. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. *(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)*
|
