TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
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, 1962 was sustainable against a customs house agent when the record did not show any investigation, statement, or other evidence establishing complicity or prior knowledge of the alleged misdeclaration.
Analysis: The only role attributed to the appellant was filing the bill of entry. The record contained no incriminating statement or other material linking the appellant to the alleged false description or undervaluation of the imported goods. In the absence of evidence showing involvement, awareness, or foreknowledge of misuse of the importer's code, the foundation for abetment and penalty was not made out.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
