AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The brief facts of the case are that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated the alleged fraudulent export activities by M/s. SSK Knit Apparels, Tirupur. It appeared that the firms were fictitious, export values were inflated, and undue drawback benefits were claimed without realizing export proceeds. A show cause notice (SCN), dated 06.10.2006 was issued by DRI to the Custom House Agent/ Customs Broker (CHA/ CB), appellant herein, for allegedly filing shipping bills without verifying declarations and other such acts facilitating the wrongful drawback claims of Rs. 1,05,81,796/-. The OIO confirmed recovery of the drawback amount along with interest from the exporter. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also imposed on the appellant herein i.e. M/s. Manasa Impex Services under sec. 114(iii) of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Counsel appeared for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 Shri S. Murugappan, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the SCNs were issued by DRI. The DRI Officers are not competent officers to issue these notices in terms of Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porter, which is sufficient to show that there was proper authorisation from the exporter. Even otherwise action in such a case would lie under the CHALR. D) As regards the allegation that it is the responsibility of the CHA to verify the genuineness and correctness of various documents given in accordance as per CHALR, he stated that the CHA cannot assume the responsibility for verifying the authorisation. That is the work of the Customs officers. E) The Bill of Lading (BL) is prepared after the export goods are handed over to the liner. The OIO cannot allege that the appellant has been instrumental in liaising with the freight forwarders in getting the port of discharge changed. Nor has such a charge been made by the exporter in his statement. F) The above findings in the OIO will not render the goods liable for confiscation under section 113(i) and the appellant liable for a penalty under section 114(iii) of the Act. In the present case the OIO fails to adduce evidence as to how the value in respect of the goods exported was mis-declared or any other material was mis-declared. Further nothing has been shown that they had abetted the exporter, as no act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05, proposing recovery of duty draw back in terms of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise duty Drawback Rules, 1995 stands issued by ADG, DRI Delhi Zonal unit. As per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, recovery of any alleged erroneous or excess payment of duty draw back can be demanded by a PROPER OFFICER of Customs. The proper officer stand defined under Explanation 2 (34) of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as under:- "'Proper Officer', in relation to any function to be performed under the said, means the officer of Customs, who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs." 13. The issue whether Commissioner of Customs (Prev) was the proper officer for the purpose of issue of Show cause notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Syed Ali [2011 (265) ELT 17 (SC). It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in terms of provisions of Section 2(34) only such officers of Customs who have been assigned specific functions would be proper officer in terms of provisions of section 2(34....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Act. The amendment was made by inserting clause 11 to Section 28 wherein any action taken by the officer of Customs before 6.7.2011 shall be deemed to have and always had the powers of assessment under Section 17 and shall be deemed to have been and always had been the proper officer for the purpose of this section. In a nut shell, the law was amended with retrospective effect so as to confer jurisdiction to the DRI officers and Customs (Prev) officers for the purpose of show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act. 15. However in the present case, we find that show cause notice stand issued in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise duty and Service Tax draw back 1995. The said Rule, for the sake of convenience is reproduced below: "RULE 16. Repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback and interest.- Where an amount of drawback and interest, if any, has been paid erroneously or the amount so paid is in excess of what the claimant is entitled to, the claimant shall, on demand by a proper officer of Customs repay the amount so paid erroneously or in excess, as the case may be, and where the claimant fails to repay the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ali and subsequently followed in the number of decisions referred (supra). It is seen that after declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ali, the law was amended with retrospective effect conferring jurisdiction on DRI officers as also on Commissioner of Customs, (Prev) for the purpose of issuance of Show cause notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act with retrospective effect. However, no such amendment was made in respect of show cause notices issued under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules 1995. Infact it is seen that even when the law was amended subsequently, on 6.7.11 and section 28 was amended retrospectively with effect from 16.9.11, the Boards circular No. 24/2011 was issued on 31.5.11, wherein the issuance of show cause notice in terms of Rule 16 of Drawback Rules was considered and the proper officers were specified only in relation to the monetary limits. In the said circular, DRI officers were never considered to be proper officers for demanding draw back under Rule 16. There was no retrospective amendment carried out in the said Rule 16 so as to confer jurisdiction on the DRI officer for issuance of show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs M/S CANON INDIA PVT. LTD. [2024 INSC 854] (Also referred to as Canon India -II), reviewed its earlier order which held that the officers of DRI are not 'proper officers' within the meaning of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act. The Hon'ble Court held that Circular No. 4/99 dated 15.02.1999 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), which empowered officers of DRI to issue show-cause notices under S. 28 of the Act as well as Notification no. 44/2011 dated 06.07.2011 which assigned the functions of "proper officers" for the purposes of Sections 17 and 28 to the officers of the DRI were not brought to the notice of the Apex Court during the proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2018, dated 09.03.202, titled M/s Canon India Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Also referred to as Canon India - I). The Judgment also set aside the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs Union of India reported [(2016) SCC Online Del 2597] and upheld the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs Union of India and Others [(2014) SCC Online Bom 1742]. It also u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Customs Act 97. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal, or other authority, or in the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Act),-- (i) anything done or any duty performed or any action taken or purported to have been taken or done under Chapters V, VAA, VI, IX, X, XI, XII, XIIA, XIII, XIV, XVI and XVII of the Customs Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by this Act, shall be deemed to have been validly done or performed or taken; (ii) any notification issued under the Customs Act for appointing or assigning functions to any officer shall be deemed to have been validly issued for all purposes, including for the purposes of section 6; (iii) for the purposes of this section, sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Customs Act, as amended by this Act, shall have and shall always be deemed to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of the Customs Act, as amended by this Act, had been in force at all material times. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that any proceeding arising out of any action t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non India (supra). In other words, the judgment in Canon India (supra) was rendered without looking into the circular and the notification referred to above thereby seriously affecting the correctness of the same. b. The decision in Canon India (supra) failed to consider the statutory scheme of Sections 2(34) and 5 of the Act, 1962 respectively. As a result, the decision erroneously recorded the finding that since DRI officers were not entrusted with the functions of a proper officer for the purposes of Section 28 in accordance with Section 6, they did not possess the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for the recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Act, 1962. c. The reliance placed in Canon India (supra) on the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) is misplaced for two reasons - first, Sayed Ali (supra) dealt with the case of officers of customs (Preventive), who, on the date of the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) were not empowered to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 unlike the officers of DRI; and secondly, the decision in Sayed Ali (supra) took into consideration Section 17 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... set aside the decision in Mangali Impex (supra) and approve the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta (supra). (v) Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 which, inter-alia, retrospectively validated all show cause notices issued under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 cannot be said to be unconstitutional. It cannot be said that Section 97 fails to cure the defect pointed out in Canon India (supra) Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 158 of 161 nor is it manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate and overbroad, for the reasons recorded in the foregoing parts of this judgment. We clarify that the findings in respect of the vires of the Finance Act, 2022 is confined only to the questions raised in the petition seeking review of the judgment in Canon India (supra). The challenge to the Finance Act, 2022 on grounds other than those dealt with herein, if any, are kept open. (vi) Subject to the observations made in this judgment, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n merits. f. Where appeals against the orders-in-original involving issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices under Section 28 are pending before the CESTAT, they shall now be decided in accordance with the observations made in this decision. 169. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the Review Petition No. 400/2021 titled Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. and the connected Review Petition Nos. 401/2021, 402/2021 and 403/2021 insofar as the issue of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notice under Section 28 is concerned. As discussed, the findings of this Court in Canon India (supra) in respect of the show cause notices having been issued beyond the limitation period remain undisturbed. 170. We set aside the decision of the High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of Mangali Impex (supra) and uphold the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sunil Gupta (supra). We also uphold the constitutional validity of Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022. 10. In the above Review Judgment the Hon'ble Court in Canon India - II, while holding that DRI officers, among oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted as officers of Customs under subsection 2(4) before 6th July, 2011 as "proper officers" for the purposes of section 28. They also are deemed to be possessing the power of assessment under section 17. 20) In the present case, if the show cause notice has been issued by the Director of Intelligence, then, we have to find as to whether he was competent to do so. In that regard, we have on record the Notification dated 26th April, 1990 Exhibit-I at page 369 of the paper book. That reads as under: "Notification: 19/89-Cus. (NT) dated 26 Apr 1990 Appointment of D. R. I. Officials as Customs Officers In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 186-Cus., dated 4th August, 1981 (as amended), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below to be the Collector of Customs, the officers mentioned in column (3) thereof to be Deputy Collectors of Customs, and officers mentioned in column (4) thereof to be Assistant Collector of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Additional Director General was incompetent to issue the show cause notice. There is no force in the argument that despite such Notification and the subsequent one issued on 6th July, 2011, the Central Government and the Board have not entrusted or assigned the functions of the proper officer to this Additional Director. Now, the further Notification at page 373 of the paper book proceeds to assign the functions of the proper officer to Additional Director General of this Directorate. In these circumstances and when section 17 and 28 are specifically referred to in the Notification at page 373, then, we do not see any force in the argument of the Petitioner that the DRI was not competent to issue the subject show cause notice. The Notifications clearly indicate that the officers of this directorate have been entrusted or assigned the functions of the Customs Officers for the purpose of these sections. They could have therefore set the law in motion. 22) There is no need to decide any wider question or controversy after these Notifications, which have been brought to our notice. That apart, we do not find any force in the argument of Mr.Singh that though subsection (11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, which were issued and holding the field, not designating the Collector of Customs (Preventive) as a proper officer for the purpose of section 28 as it then stood, he was not competent to issue show cause notice (see para 24 of Sayed Ali's Judgment). This position has now undergone a change and from 6th July, 2011, admittedly, they have been assigned these functions and of the Custom officers. They are therefore competent and the Notification in that behalf at page 373 of the paper book has been given a retrospective effect. It is not the argument of Mr. Singh that the law cannot be amended retrospectively. It is also not his argument that the validating Act does not validate anything which may be or is invalid. In the circumstances and the Parliament being competent to make such a law, we find no force in the arguments canvassed before us. Once the above view is taken, then, no reference is required to be made to the other Judgments cited by both Mr. Singh and Mr. Jetly. (emphasis added) The judgment hence found that officers of DRI were competent to issue a SCN under Section 28 of the Act. 12. We find that the Tribunal in the case of M/S. Monte International (sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said order. Section 4 of the Act deals with the appointment of Officers of Customs. Section 4(1) empowers the Board to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Officers of Customs. Sub-Section (2) of the said Section provides, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section (1), the Board may authorize a Chief Commissioner of Customs or a Commissioner of Customs or a Joint or Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs to appoint Officers of Customs below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs. By virtue of the powers so conferred under sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the Board has issued the Notification No. 17/2002 No. CUS (NT) dated 7th March 2002 which reads as under: "Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) officers appointed as Customs Officers - Notification No. 19/90-Cus(N.T.) superseded. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of finance (Department of Revenue) No. 19/90/90-Customs (N.T.), dated the 26th April 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. It is by virtue of the statutory provision, the Director of Revenue Intelligence, who was appointed as Commissioner of Customs to investigate and issue show cause notice, has adjudicated the dispute regarding payment of duty draw back also. The Rule on which reliance is placed is attracted in the absence of a Notification. Once a Notification is issued in pursuance of Section 4 (1) of the Act. Then, the person so appointed has all the powers conferred under Section 5 (2) of the Act. That is precisely, what the Tribunal has said and therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that the Director of Revenue Intelligence had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding duty drawback. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court which has held that when a statute specifically states who should exercise the power, how power should be exercised and the same fashion is concerned, there is no quarrel with the legal proposition. Section 5 (2) of the Act specifically provides that, a higher Officer of the Customs also has the power to perform functions and duties of a lower Officer. Therefore, a person appointed under Section 4 (1) of the Act, by virtue of Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawback Rules, 2017. Rule 17 of the new Rules contains identical provisions] 14.1 The appellant at the outset had stated that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Canon India - II, deals with the powers of the DRI Officer with regard to section 17 and section 28 of the Act. The issue of notice by DRI in terms of Section 75 read with rules 16 and 16A of Rules, was not a question decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. This averment does not appear to be correct. The power under section 28 of the Act, pertains to a situation where any duty has not been levied or not paid or has been short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded, or any interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded. 14.2 It is hence clear that cases involving erroneous refund are also covered under the provisions of section 28 ibid. The Hon'ble Madras High Court M/s. PGC Corporation Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [W.P.No. 12480 of 2019 & WMP.No. 12753 of 2019 DATED: 12.07.2022], had an occasion to examine a case of drawback, where it was argued that it does not amount to refund. The Hon'ble Justice Anita Sumanth, while deciding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 as follows: "drawback' in relation to any goods manufactured in India and exported, means the rebate of duty or tax, as the case may be, chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used or taxable services used as input services in the manufacture of such goods." 10. In my considered view, there is no merit in the distinction that is sought to be made by the petitioner between the concepts of 'duty' and 'drawback' since what the petitioner/assessee is permitted to draw-back is the duty paid by it on certain inputs, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. 11. The benefit of drawback is granted if the assessee in question satisfies the condition imposed, including receipt of the sales proceeds within a stipulated period. The argument that there is a distinction between 'rebate of duty' and 'duty' and that, legally and functionally the two expressions refer to two different concepts is also misconceived as a rebate is nothing but a refund of duty and the nature of both remains the same. 12. In fact, in Circular No. 993/17/20140CS dated 05.01.2015, the Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a proper officer repay the amount so paid. Hence in the light of the discussion above an officer of DRI would have the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices under rule 16 of the Rules also. 16. A similar issue was examined by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/S. Redington (India) Limited vs Principal Additional Director, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Chennai [2022 (62) GSTL 406 (Mad)]. The issue involved the validity of SCN's issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of GST Intelligence of, Chennai Zonal Unit among others. It appeared to the Cort that the argument were inspired from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Sayed Ali [2011 (265) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.)] and in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2021 (376) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. After examining the issue the Hon'ble Court held that it is the "Central Excise Officer" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 who can be appointed as the "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1944. Under Notification No. 38/2001-C.E. (N.T), dated 26.06.2001, the Board, invested the officers mentioned therein with all the powers to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid drawback, the present practice of issuing Show Cause Notice and adjudication of case without any limit by Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall continue. (ii) In cases involving collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts etc., the adjudication powers will be as under: Level of Adjudication Officer Amount of Drawback Additional / Joint Commissioner of Customs Without any limit Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Customs Upto Rs. 5 lakhs 6. In case of Export Promotion Scheme. . . " It is seen that the circular only refers to officers of Customs. Since DRI officers were also appointed as officers of Customs, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Review Judgment on Canon India - II, the circular would also be applicable to them and it cannot be said that they do not have jurisdiction to issue SCN in the case of drawback. Moreover a circular does not have the same force as that of a notification issued under the Act, appointing officers of Customs and cannot over ride it. 17.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, [2005 (18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al has in its order dated 25th June, 2003, inter alia, held as follows :- "....Further, at the relevant time as per the provisions of Section 11A(1) proper officer which includes Superintendent is competent to issue the show cause notice. Board's Circular is only the administrative directions which does not cause any prejudice to the Appellants..." In our view this is absolutely correct. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the Judgment dated 25th June, 2003. We hold that the Superintendent had jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate." 17.3 The above judgment of the Supreme Court in PAHWA CHEMICALS was affirmed by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AEON'S CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS LTD. Vs COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI [2005 (184) E.L.T. 120 (S.C.)]. The Hon'ble Court held; "6. . . . In our view, Section 33 makes no difference to the position of law as enumerated in Pahwa Chemicals' case (supra). To the extent Section 33 permits the Board to reduce limits or confer power on other Officers the Board may do so. But this is in respect of adjudication. Significantly in respect of issuance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which may be different from the interpretation which the rule could have if it was construed independently of the provisions in the Act. In other words, to uphold the validity of the rule sometimes a strained meaning can be given to it, which may depart from the ordinary meaning, if that is necessary to make the rule in conformity with the provisions of the Act. This is because it is a well settled principle of interpretation that if there two interpretations possible of a rule, one of which would uphold its validity while the other which would invalidate it, the former should be preferred." (emphasis added) In the light of the above judgment in case of any conflict between the provisions of a notification, (which has to be read as a part of the Act - See Video Electronics and TN Electricity Board cited above), and the provisions of a circular, the former will prevail. 18. Based on the discussions above the plea of the appellant on this issue of jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue a SCN in the case of drawback, must fail. 19. We now examine the second issue as to whether a penalty can be imposed on the CHA. The chart below summarises the various case in which the CHA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater.] [ Substituted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 117, for Clause (iii) (w.e.f. 14.5.2003).] (emphasis added) 20. Appeal No. C/290/2009 was taken as the lead case and argued at the Bar by the rival parties, hence, it would be relevant to go through the findings in the said OIO. The findings against the appellant in the other OIO's are also near identical. "51. M/s. Manasa Impex Services, Coimbatore the CHA have failed to get authorization of the exporter and has not observed due diligence in verifying the correctness of the information given by their clients with regard to the particulars in the Shipping Bills. The conduct of the CHA is with total disregard to the trust vested with him by the statute, and such breach of trust is to be viewed seriously. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Satish Gupta Vs. UOI (2007 (112) ELT 178 (Del)) and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency Vs. CC Madras [2001 (129) ELT 29 (Mad)) have come down heavily upon such erring CHAS. Both these cases have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. M/s. Manasa Impex Have f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the role of a CHA under the Regulations and penal action can be taken under the Customs Act 1962. Moreover, if violations of both the laws are evident then action taken under the Customs Act shall be without prejudice to the action taken under the Regulations and the proceedings can, if the situation warrants, go on simultaneously. 6. When the legislature makes a special law, the presumption is that a general enactment is not intended to interfere with the special provision unless that intention of the legislature is stated very clearly. The specific prevails over the general. Each enactment must be construed in that respect according to its own subject matter and its own terms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, RAJASTHAN v. M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD. & ANR. [(2014) 3 S.C.R. 1] while examining this issue sated as under; 29. It is well established that when a general law and a special law dealing with some aspect dealt with by the general law are in question, the rule adopted and applied is one of harmonious construction whereby the general law, to the extent dealt with by the special law, is impliedly repealed. This principle finds its origins in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stood, to understand the legal issues involved; S. 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. -- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. *****. *****. ***** S.107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1. - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anyth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at is lawfully expected of him under the Regulations and which others have made an unlawful use of, to rope the CB under the penal provision of the Customs Act. It has to be shown that the act was done in reference to their common intention to do an illegal act or that the CB had a stake in the outcome of the illegality. In other words, the act or stake was not just a violation of his obligation as a CB but was done with knowledge of the illegality. The evidence in this regard can be both / either, direct or circumstantial so long as common intent is discernable." 22. There is nothing in para 51 of the OIO, extracted above, to show that the CHA/ CB had allegedly not only failed to act as per his responsibilities under the CHALR, but beyond it as well. The alleged mastermind, Shri Gunasekhar nor Shri R. Soundrajan have implicated the appellant, nor did the appellant admit to any wrongdoing, in abetting the offence or of colluding with the said persons etc or benefitting from any blame worthy act. If a CHA/CB fails to act within his duties, disciplinary action falls under CHALR; only abetting or collusion or wrongful involvement beyond those duties will call for invoking section 1....