Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Thus we find that the Commissioner was right in holding that the goods were not liable for confiscation. Since Shri Shamsuddin and A.R. Rahman have not filed any entry which rendered the goods liable for confiscation, his Orders not imposing penalty upon them also sustain and are upheld. For this same reason his refraining from imposing any penalty on the other Respondents S/Shri Mutta, Lambat and Advocate Pandey also sustains.

20. S/Shri Lambat, Mutta and Pandey were alleged to have aided and abetted the acting of the two partners. Abetment presupposes knowledge of the proposed offence and also presupposes benefit to be derived by the abetters therefrom. Even if the action of backdating of the agreement is improper (and perhaps illegal), there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that these three persons were aware that the backdated document was a cover up for an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. In the absence of conscious knowledge, penalty on charge of aiding and abetting would not sustain.