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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty imposed on the customs broker and its director under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment in over-utilisation of EPCG licence value and diversion of duty-free imported capital goods was sustainable.
Analysis: The record did not contain concrete evidence to show that the appellants had assisted, connived with, or abetted the importer in diversion of the goods or in misuse of the EPCG authorisation. The role of a customs broker was confined to facilitating clearance of import consignments at the port, and the broker could not be fastened with responsibility for monitoring post-clearance installation or end-use of the goods. The authority responsible for debit and control of EPCG licence value was the customs administration, and in the absence of material showing mala fides or active participation by the appellants, the statutory requirement for imposing penalty was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside; the appeals were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for abetment under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on a customs broker without concrete evidence of connivance, active assistance, or mala fide participation in the alleged misuse or diversion.