2012 (6) TMI 818 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is enough evidence to implicate the appellant in the fraudulent export activities of M/s. Megna Impex.
2. Whether the appellant aided and abetted the fraudulent export activities.

Summary:

Issue 1: Evidence to Implicate the Appellant

The primary issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to implicate the appellant in the fraudulent export activities of M/s. Megna Impex. The Revenue's case relied heavily on the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar, who claimed that the appellant was a beneficiary of the illicit gains to the extent of 20%. However, the tribunal noted that apart from Shri Ashok Kumar, no other person, including Shri Gurkirpal Singh or Shri Satbir Singh, corroborated this claim. The appellant himself denied receiving any share of the profits. The tribunal emphasized that the statement of a co-accused requires corroboration from independent sources, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar alone could not be the sole basis for implicating the appellant.

Issue 2: Aiding and Abetting Fraudulent Activities

The second issue was whether the appellant aided and abetted the fraudulent export activities. The tribunal found that the evidence on record only implicated Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Gurkirpal Singh in the fraudulent activities. Shri Satbir Singh's statements during the investigation indicated that it was Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Gurkirpal Singh who managed the affairs of M/s. Megna Impex and that the appellant was only involved in the preparation of documents in his professional capacity as a Chartered Accountant. The tribunal also noted that the CBI investigation had given a clean chit to the appellant, stating that no criminal mens rea was substantiated against him. Additionally, the Income Tax assessment order concluded that the real beneficiaries of the fraudulent exports were Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Gurkirpal Singh, not the appellant.

The tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of the appellant's financial involvement in the export of goods or any assistance rendered for the fraudulent exports. The mere fact that the appellant applied for the IE code number and DEPB scrips on behalf of M/s. Megna Impex, or that the proprietor of M/s. Megna Impex was his employee, was not sufficient to hold him liable for aiding and abetting the fraudulent activities. The tribunal emphasized that mere knowledge of illegal activities is not sufficient to invite penal action.

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, the tribunal found no justifiable reason to impose penalties upon the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

Pronounced in the open court on 26.6.2012.