2026-VIL-443-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Abetment of smuggling by Custom House Agent company - The appellant was imposed a penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act based solely on his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Whether penalty can be imposed under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act solely based on statements recorded under Section 108 – HELD – The Sections 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act and 9D(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act mandate that statements recorded under Sections 108 and 14, respectively, can be considered relevant for proving the truth of the facts contained in them only when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion that the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. This procedural requirement has been held to be mandatory by various High Courts and the Tribunal, with the rationale being to neutralize the possibility of such statements being recorded under coercion or compulsion. In the absence of compliance with this procedure, the statements cannot be relied upon as evidence – Further, mere facilitation without knowledge would not amount to abetment. Intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under Section 112(a)(i). There was no allegation that the appellant had knowledge that the documents submitted by the other persons were not genuine. Therefore, penalty under Section 112(a)(i) could not have been imposed upon the appellant – The penalty imposed upon the appellant under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page