Page 223 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] PRERNA SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT-II), MUMBAI 613

outside India is to be understood and also application of Section 4 of IPC in the
cited judgments of the above referred case laws. However, a comparison is re-
quired to be made between Section 3 and Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code con-
cerning its application beyond the territorial jurisdiction of sovereign India.
While Section 4 deals with application of IPC to extra-territorial offences, Section
3 provides judicial power of punishment to any person for violation of any Indian
law. Such primary distinction is not noticeable in the judgment of Shafeek P.K. v.
CC, Cochin - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 199 cited supra.
9. It has also been argued by Learned Counsel for the appellant that
judgment of the Tribunal in the Hi Lingos Co. v. Collector of Customs case has been
confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 1997 (95) E.L.T. A147 (S.C.)
and it was the first decision on the jurisdiction issue apart from C.K. Kunhammed
v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 146 judgment which had
dealt with application of Private International law on foreign nationals. Howev-
er, going by the findings in Hi Lingos’ case, it can be noticed that penalty under
Section 112 was set aside not on the ground of jurisdiction and there was a spe-
cific finding made by one of the members in the said judgment at Para 4(8) that
such misdeclaration of description of goods was within the mischief of Secton
112 of Customs Act even though the importers were in foreign country. Hon’ble
Supreme Court had not dealt with any of the aspects on merit, since the appeal
was dismissed for non-prosecution. Moreover no finding is forthcoming from the
judgment reported in 2017 (348) E.L.T. 168 (Tri. - Mumbai) in the case of Narendra
Lodaya v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva as to why Settlement Commis-
sioner had not dealt with the cases of foreign nationals therein to make the said
judgment a binding precedent for the subsequent decisions of the Tribunal, be-
sides the fact that stage from which Customs Act is applicable was determined
therein.
10. In the instant case appellants have subjected themselves to the ju-
risdiction of Customs Act upon notice sent to them under Section 108 of the said
Act which would have otherwise ensured through extradiction process. Appel-
lant Prerna Singh had also confessed during regarding of her statement as CEO
of her company that appellant Seville Products Ltd. used to raise two invoices for
same import having low value and high value recorded in those invoices which
were despatched through a computer of third party named Prakesh Menon for
presentation of the invoices having lower value before the Customs for payment
of Customs duty and clearance and that the commercial invoice against which
payment was received was not shown to the Customs. Meaning of word abet-
ment is “to help someone in wrongdoing’. In the instant case such wrongdoing
had its effect in the Mumbai Customs jurisdiction and appellants had aided the
importer in such wrongdoing. Therefore, penalty under Section 112 was rightly
involved. Further appellant Prerna had never rescinded from her statement and
in view of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, such admission needs no fur-
ther proof to hold appellants guilty of violation of the Section 112(a) of Customs
Act. Hence the order.
ORDER
11. Both the appeals are dismissed and Order No. 11/2018-19, dated
23-8-2018 of the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai is hereby con-
firmed.
(Order pronounced in the Court on 22-1-2020)
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  223