9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Allegation of abetment in fraudulent activities under Section 114 of Customs Act against a limited company engaged in the activity of CHA.
Summary: The appellant, a limited company engaged in the activity of CHA, was accused of abetting fraudulent activities by an exporter who diverted duty-free imported fabrics to the local market. The investigation did not establish the appellant's involvement in the offense. The appellants argued that they were not responsible for the evasion of duty by the exporter and that Section 114(i) of the Customs Act could not be invoked against them. The Commissioner noted the involvement of a person from the appellant's office in the export fraud but lacked evidence to link the appellant to the offense. Upon review, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence against the appellants. The absence of evidence or findings against the appellant led to the conclusion that they could not be charged under Section 114 of the Customs Act for abetment. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of evidence to establish abetment. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment highlights the importance of substantial evidence to prove allegations of abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order against the appellant.
|
