TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portunity to the petitioner to cross-examine certain witnesses, the writ petition being WPO 378/2025 has been filed. 2. Since during pendency of the writ petition, an adjudication order had been passed on 29th /30th May, 2025, the writ petition being WPO 436/2025 has been filed. By consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together and dealt with by this common order. 3. Though, the petitioner was a custom house agent, however, since his license was under suspension at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had brokered a deal with Mr. Sudipta Bose of M/s. Bose Enterprise, a customs house broker for generating Customs Transit Declaration for transhipment of Nepal bound Container on behalf of Nepalese importer na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p the hearing in abeyance. 6. The petitioner never participated in the proceeding. Following the above, the order-in-original was passed on 29th/30th May, 2025. 7. Ms. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing in support of the aforesaid writ petitions has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant documents, inter alia, including the show cause notice, the statement of the petitioner, the response filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and the order-in-original. She would submit that, the adjudicating officer in the instant case by not providing the petitioner with the opportunity to cross-examine the other two co-noticees had violated the principles of natural justice which has caused immense prejudice to the petitioner. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n with Mr. Sudipta Bose of M/s. Bose Enterprise. He has also placed the relevant findings of the adjudicating authority where the involvement of the petitioner has been noted. According to him, no interference is called for. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I note that ordinarily challenge to an adjudicating order is not maintainable in a writ petition in exercise of the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, however, seeks to invalidate the order on the ground of procedural irregularity that is, on the failure on the part of the adjudicating authority to afford the petitioner with an opportunity to cross-examine the co-noticees and the failure on the part of the adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r did not participate in the proceeding. Having regard thereto, as is apparent from the above, there has been no failure of justice on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 10. On the issue of implicating and holding the petitioner liable under section 112(a) of the said Act, I notice that section 112(a) of the said Act, inter alia, proceeds as under: "112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc.- Any person- (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....five] thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding [* * *] the value of the goods or [* * *] the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or [five] thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding [* * *] the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or [* * *] the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or [five] thousand rupees, whichever is the highest.]" 11. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that there has to be an act of omission in relation to the goods which would render the goods liable for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third para of Section 107."" 12. I also find that such observation is based on the provision of section 3(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which, inter alia, provides that the expression 'abet' would have the same meaning as in the Indian Penal Code 1860. Provision of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code had been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Delhi Court and based thereon the aforesaid observation had been made. The judgment delivered in the case of Shree Ram v. State of U. P., reported in (1975) 3 SCC 495 and the judgment delivered in the case of Amritlakshmi Machine Works v. The Commissioner of Customs (Import)....