Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

No penalty in case of commission of illegal act without mens rea

Bimal jain
Court Overturns Penalty for Customs Broker; No Proof of Intent Under Section 112(a) of Customs Act Required for Mens Rea The Delhi High Court set aside a penalty against an individual involved in importing prohibited goods, ruling that penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act require mens rea, or knowledge of wrongdoing. The individual, a customs broker, had filed import documents for goods later deemed illegal. Despite an initial penalty, the court found no evidence of the individual's awareness of the goods' prohibited status, aligning with a precedent from the Bombay High Court. The decision underscores the necessity of intent for penalizing abetment in illegal imports. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RAJEEV KHATRI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) - 2023 (7) TMI 218 - DELHI HIGH COURT set aside the penalty order passed underSection 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962(“the Customs Act”) and held that assessee cannot be penalized for abetting the illegal import as there is no evidence that assessee has knowledge of the import of prohibited goods.

Facts:

Rajeev Khatri (“the Appellant”) was a G-Card holder of M/s GND Cargo Movers, a licensed Customs Broker, the Appellant had filed the Bill of Entry for importing goods, which were later found illegally imported.

A Show Cause Notice dated September 26, 2013 (“the SCN”) was issued to the importers as well as to the Appellant. The Adjudication authority found that the goods had been mis-declared and the import of such goods was prohibited and thus such goods were liable for confiscation. Apart from directing confiscation Adjudicating Authority, inter alia, imposed penalties on the Appellant including penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated January 02, 2018 (“the Order-in Original”) inter alia imposing penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

The Appellant filled an appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi challenging the Order-in Original. The CESTAT vide order dated June 4, 2020 (“the Impugned Order”), held that the penalty imposed was disproportionate and reduced the quantum of penalty.

Aggrieved with the Impugned order the Appellant filed the writ before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Issue:

Whether a person who imports goods without knowing that such goods are prohibited for import, could be penalized under the Customs Act for abetting such import?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RAJEEV KHATRI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) - 2023 (7) TMI 218 - DELHI HIGH COURTheld as under:

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles