1987 (4) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the charge of abetment under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 can survive if a person has been absolved of the charge of abetment under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legal sustainability of imposing a penalty under Rule 126L-16 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 for abetment when there is no evidence for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Charge of Abetment under Defence of India Rules, 1962

The applicant contended that since the Customs Act, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules, 1962 have identical provisions regarding abetment, absolution under one should imply absolution under the other. The Tribunal, however, disagreed, emphasizing the distinct nature of the two statutes. The Customs Act deals with the improper importation of goods, whereas the Defence of India Rules address the possession and control of gold. The Tribunal highlighted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had exonerated the appellant under the Customs Act due to a lack of evidence for abetment, but had also noted involvement in dealing with contraband gold. Consequently, the Tribunal found no legal impediment in punishing the appellant under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, even though he was exonerated under the Customs Act.

The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. V.O.S. Ansari, which held that the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act have different purposes and scopes. The Customs Act involves importation of goods, while the Gold Control Act involves possession or control of gold. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a person could be convicted independently under the Gold Control Act, irrespective of absolution under the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty under Rule 126L-16 of Defence of India Rules, 1962

The applicant argued that without evidence for abetment under Section 112 of the Customs Act, imposing a penalty under Rule 126L-16 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal, however, found this argument to lack merit, reiterating that the provisions of the Customs Act and the Defence of India Rules are distinct. The Tribunal noted that the contraband gold was recovered from the conscious possession and control of the appellants, thus justifying the penalty under the Defence of India Rules.

The Tribunal also noted that the cases cited by the applicant, including A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 451 and A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 815, were not applicable to the current controversy. The Tribunal emphasized that the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in V.O.S. Ansari had already established that separate penalties under different statutes with distinct scopes and purposes were permissible.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal rejected the application, concluding that no question of law requiring reference to the High Court was involved. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, despite the lack of evidence for abetment under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the distinct nature and scope of the two statutes.

← Previous Next →