'I am not a TERRORIST, I AM...', Huawei India CEO makes EXPLOVISE argument in court

Huawei India CEO Li Xiongwei, in an apparent reference to a dialogue from a Bollywood movie, told the court “I am a Chinese and not a terrorist." The CEO’s comment through his lawyer was during a hearing on Friday, in connection with an Income Tax case.

New Delhi: Huawei India CEO Li Xiongwei on Friday (August 12, 2022) in an apparent reference to a dialogue from a Bollywood movie, while responding to the Income Tax Department’s position to his bail plea told a Delhi court said, "I am a Chinese (national) and not a terrorist."

The CEO`s comment through his lawyer was during a hearing on Friday, in connection with an Income Tax case. His line came in reference to Shah Rukh Khan's line in movie, My name in Khan, where he had said, "My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist."

In the earlier hearing, the Income Tax Department stated that Huawei had a "willful failure" of providing account books and relevant documents during a search at the Chinese electronic company`s Gurugram office.

"The culpable mental state of the accused persons is to be presumed," stated Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Anurag Thakur in a recent order.

According to the reports, as India does not have an extradition treaty with China, if the Huawei India CEO leaves the nation, it would 'be very difficult' to bring him back, the I-T department told the court in an affidavit, adding that the investigation is not yet complete. 

He stating that there is sufficient material on record to summon the accused persons under 275-B and section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Deals punishment for failure in facilitating an authorised officer to inspect the books of account or other documents).

According to the complaint, on February 15, the Income Tax Department conducted a search at Huawei Communications` Gurugram office for the verification of the books of accounts.

However, during the course of the search, Li, Sandeep Bhatia, Amit Duggal and Long Cheng, willfully and deliberately did not comply with the department, it said.

The court also noted that Li and others deliberately chose to give vague answers to some questions in their statement to the Department.

It further noted that the accused were only trying to somehow confuse the authorised officer in order to deny access to documents and unreasonably took a long time for furnishing data and information which have been readily available.

(With agency inputs)