DWARKNATH PADHY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 20/2004 -Cus. dated 19 -3 -2004 by which the appellant has been held to have abetted in the offence of importing goods on behalf of his friend Shri Kalyanasundaram. The goods were declared as parts of computers, while on examining it was found to be Mercury Computer Tower Casings, Pronographic CDs and CDs/DVDs. The goods were confiscated and penalties have been imposed on several persons including on the appellant. The appellants contention is that he is in no way connected with the import of goods. Therefore, the requirements of Section 112(a)(i) has not been complied and penalty cannot be imposed.

(2.) THE appellants stand is that he was a friend of Shri Kalyanasundaram. He had only permitted him to use his address for importing goods on his friends submission that he was importing licit goods which are required for home consumption. He was not aware of the activity of Shri Kalyanasundaram in importing illicit goods. He had never helped him in procuring the goods or sale of the goods and he was totally innocent in the matter. However, the authorities have not accepted his plea and have taken a view that in Para 14 that his role to the extent of furnishing his address to M/s. Vishwapriya Enterprises for use and arranging transport of their materials at the request of Shri Kalyanasundaram has been accepted by him and not retracted. Therefore, the allegation stands against him. The judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. (TOMCL) and Another v. UOI - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 931 (Bom.) cited by the appellant was not accepted by the Commissioner without giving any reason as to how the said Rule is not applicable. The Bombay High Court judgment clearly analysed the definition of abetment and concluded that the expression abetment has been defined under the General Clauses Act as one known in the Indian Penal Code and under the Indian Penal Code, the person is said to abet when such person instigates or participates in commission of an offence.

(3.) THE learned JDR contended that the fact that assessee has given his address to Shri Kalyanasundaram to do his business is sufficient to involve him in the charge of abetment and penalty imposed against him should be sustained.