TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Proprietor of M/s.Thivya Agencies respectively against common Order-in-Original No.60310/2017 dated 15.12.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III whereby the Commissioner has inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs.35,00,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 114AA ibid on each of the Appellants. 2. It appears that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit (DRI-CZU) received specific intelligence that M/s. Thivya Agencies (IEC: 0414009703) of No.18, K.H. Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600 023 was attempting to smuggle cigarettes of foreign origin/brand in the guise of declared cargo i.e. 'MALAYSIAN CORE VENEER' through the Chennai Seaport in 1x40' container No. IALU 45....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants for their alleged roles in the attempted smuggling of goods in question. It appears that the Appellants filed their respective replies and thereafter the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposals made in the SCN vide Order-in-Original No. 60310/2017 dated 15.12.2017. Strangely, neither in the SCN nor in the impugned Order-in-Original does the Revenue whisper about the actual importer, though they have missed a crucial link of the phone number and without any further action, have exonerated one Sharvesh Bulchandani, when only the uncorroborated allegations remained against these Appellants. The Revenue has very conveniently accepted the bona fides claimed by the said Sharvesh Bulchandani whereas the bona fides claimed by these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson. From this itself it appears that the investigation has been carried out as if it is a formality and to give a clean chit to the person whose number was given and to target someone else. 7. Whether abetment could stand in the absence of the actual importer is the question. It cannot be said that the Appellants conspired with himself or themselves and caused import of goods in question. Nothing is available on record nor is it the case of the Revenue that any of these Appellants is the importer. They have failed in pursuing the crucial lead of phone number nor is there any attempt made to get the call history of the phone. 8. Further, the SCN has made bald allegations against the Appellant and is entirely based on the statement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore cannot stand. 10. Paragraph 8 of the impugned order reveals that previous clearances for M/s. Thivya Agencies i.e. 2nd Appellant were made by M/s. Zone Shipping and the original documents were handled by sub-agent M/s. Arunachalam Shipping Services of which 2nd Appellant Shri B.A. Suresh Kumar Appellant is the Proprietor. One Vasanth was also an employee of M/s.Arunachalam Shipping Services. 10.1 Para-10 indicates that enquiry with IndusInd Bank disclosed the fact of both the bank accounts remained inactive, in respect of M/s.Thivya Agencies and Shri C. Solomon Selvaraj. This fact, in fact establishes the inaccuracy in so far as the statement of Suresh Kumar is concerned, when he appears to have alleged that there was payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion; in the absence of the importer himself being absent, it has to be seen whether the charge against these Appellants stands. 13. The term 'abet' is legally defined as 'assisting, encouraging, commanding or procuring another person to commit an offence'. It broadly means actively setting on or facilitating commission of a crime, regardless of whether the abetter is physically present at the scene. It is well known that meaning of 'abet' is to aid, to assist or to give aid, to command, to procure or to counsel, to countenance, to encourage or set another one to commit. The above definition thus makes it clear that abetment occurs only when there are at least two persons involved - one committer and the other abetter. Hence, when the a....