Case Law Details
Rajeev Khatri Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on an abettor without any mens rea is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Facts- The appellant is a G-Card holder of M/s GND Cargo Movers, a person licenced to as a Customs Broker within the meaning of Regulation 2(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (‘CBLR’). The appellant had filed the Bill of Entry for import of certain goods that were found to be liable for confiscation. The Adjudicating Authority had found that the goods imported were prohibited goods and were illegally imported. The Adjudicating Authority also found that the appellant was “aware of the things which led to irregular filing of the Bill of Entry for the illegal imports made” and by the order-in-original imposed a penalty equivalent to 25% of the maximum penalty leviable u/s. 112 of the Customs Act.
Conclusion- Thus, indisputably, persons who have committed the acts of omission or commission in relation to goods that rendered them liable for confiscation, are liable to pay the penalty as stipulated under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, without any requirement to establish their mal intent. However, the same principle would not apply to persons who are alleged to have abetted such acts of omission or commission. This is because, abetment, necessarily requires, at the minimum, knowledge of the offending Act.
The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is set aside.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
