2026-VIL-988-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-988-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Abetment in smuggling - Applicability of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 when actual importer is not identified or prosecuted - Show cause notice proposing confiscation of smuggled goods and imposition of penalties against the appellants alleging involvement in attempted smuggling of foreign cigarettes concealed in declared cargo - Whether penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed against persons when the actual importer of the goods is neither identified nor prosecuted, and when the evidence against them consists only of uncorroborated and subsequently retracted statements without proper investigation – HELD - The penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be sustained when the actual committer i.e. the actual importer is not found or charges against him for improper importation are not established. The legal definition of abetment requires the existence of at least two persons involved - one committer and one abetter. Abetment occurs only when there is active assistance, encouragement, command or procurement by one person to another for commission of an offence. An abetter cannot conspire with himself to commit a crime - In customs smuggling cases, the alleged crime is the improper importation and the importer is the committer. In the absence of the identification and prosecution of the actual importer, there cannot be any penal action for abetment merely on other persons who are otherwise least interested in the act of import. The court further observes that uncorroborated statements which are subsequently retracted, coupled with half-hearted investigation that fails to pursue crucial leads such as verification of call history and interrogation through cross-examination, cannot form the basis for imposing penalty on appellants - The investigative process in the instant case appeared to be carried out as a formality to exonerate the person whose phone number was mentioned while targeting other parties, which does not constitute fair and lawful investigation. The adjudicating authority's failure to consider the detailed replies and explanations filed by the appellants and the omission to mention the actual importer further demonstrates procedural irregularity and absence of proper evidence - The impugned order levying penalty under Section 112(a) against the appellants is set aside – The appeal is allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Recent Updates: GSTAT, EWB...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?