TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was sustainable against a marker who did not mark wooden crates that were not presented to him for marking, on the ground that such omission amounted to abetment of smuggling.
Analysis: The appellant's role was confined to marking packages after they were presented for that purpose in the shed area. The record showed that the wooden crates were not presented to him by the Assistant Shed Superintendent, who himself had been penalised under Section 112 of the Customs Act for keeping the crates without reporting them to the customs authorities. On these facts, no nexus was established between the appellant's omission and the alleged smuggling activity, and the adjudicating authority also failed to identify the principal offender whose omission was allegedly abetted. For penalty under Section 112(a), the omission must have a direct connection with goods rendering them liable to confiscation, or amount to abetment of such omission.
Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) was not sustainable and stood set aside in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act requires a proven nexus between the person's omission and the act rendering the goods liable to confiscation, and cannot be imposed where the goods were never presented for the required act and no principal offender is identified.
TaxTMI 
