9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 36 - HC - CustomsPenalty u/s 112 of Customs Act 1962 - charge of abetment Held that the appellant was a party to the conspiracy pursuant to which customs duty was being evaded by clearing dutiable goods without sending the parcels containing those goods to the Foreign Post Office for the purpose of examination and he also intentionally aided in evasion of duty. The evidence available on record in the form of statement of the appellant recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act coupled with the statement of Kishori Lal is sufficient to prove the complicity of the appellant in evasion of customs duty. - The tribunal has returned a finding of fact that the appellant had abetted in the illicit import and clearance on dutiable goods without payment of duty. The finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse in any manner.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the finding of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the charge of abetment is perverse? Detailed Analysis: Background: This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is directed against the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the CESTAT, which imposed a penalty of Rs10,000/- upon the appellant for abetment in the illicit import and clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty. Incident and Seizure: On 12.10.2002, officers from the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence identified 8 parcels at the Speed Post Centre, New Delhi, which were found to contain computer parts without proper customs declarations, thus attracting customs duty. These parcels were seized as they appeared to be illegally imported. Statements and Admissions: - Kumesh Chauhan: Delivered similar parcels earlier without customs duty. - Rajesh Kumar (Customs Inspector): Admitted to clearing parcels without customs declarations. - Vishnu Kumar (Appellant): Admitted to informing Kishori Lal about parcel arrivals due to friendship, leading to their duty-free delivery. - Kishori Lal: Admitted to receiving Rs15,000/- per parcel for duty-free clearance, sharing the money with Rajesh Kumar. - Sandeep Sehgal: Admitted to importing computer parts without payment of duty and paying Kishori Lal for clearance. Commissioner's and Tribunal's Orders: - The Commissioner of Customs (Exports) initially imposed penalties on various parties but dropped charges against the appellant Vishnu Kumar. The CESTAT, however, imposed a penalty on Vishnu Kumar, holding that he had abetted in the illicit import and clearance. Legal Provisions and Interpretation: - Section 112(a) of Customs Act: Provides for penalties for acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation or abetting such acts. - Section 82 of Customs Act: Requires declarations on imported goods by post. - Section 107 of IPC: Defines "abetment" including instigating, engaging in conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of an act. Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal noted that the parcels lacked proper declarations, suggesting intentional omission to evade customs duty. - It was established that the appellant aided in the clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty by informing Kishori Lal about parcel arrivals and not reporting the lack of declarations to the Customs Inspector. Appellant's Conduct and Intent: - The appellant's actions of informing Kishori Lal and not reporting undeclared parcels indicated knowledge and intentional facilitation of duty evasion. - The appellant received money from Kishori Lal, further suggesting complicity in the evasion scheme. Standard of Proof: - The standard of proof in penalty proceedings under the Customs Act is based on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclusion: - The Tribunal's finding that the appellant abetted in the illicit import and clearance of dutiable goods was based on substantial evidence and was not perverse. - No substantial question of law arose from the appeal, leading to its dismissal. Judgment: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed by the CESTAT on the appellant for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
