1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Penalty under s.112(a) CA, 1962 quashed where importer lacked complicity or evidence beyond filing bill of entry</h1> CESTAT (AT) held that penalty under s.112(a) CA, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellant. Tribunal found no record or investigative material ... Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of CA, 1962 on CHA - false details and declarations of the description and value of the goods - appellant was aware of the mis-use of the ‘import export code’ belonging to the importer by other individuals - HELD THAT:- There is no statement on record that incriminates the appellant and that no investigation was undertaken to obtain any other evidence of complicity. It is also found that the only role of the appellant was the submission of the bill of entry. In the absence of any investigation that implicates the appellant or any other record of involvement or foreknowledge of the value and actual description of the goods, invoking of section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant is itself questionable. There are no reason to sustain the penalty imposed on the appellant which is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellant, a licensed customs house agent, was penalised Rs.10,00,000 under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and goods confiscated under sections 111(d) and 111(m) on finding that clearance documents for imported mobile accessories contained false details and that the appellant 'was aware of the mis-use of the 'import export code' belonging to the importer by other individuals,' treated as abetment. The Tribunal found no statement on record incriminating the appellant and no investigation undertaken to obtain evidence of complicity. The only proved role was submission of the bill of entry. In the absence of any record of involvement or foreknowledge of value and description, the Tribunal held that 'invoking of section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant is itself questionable.' Given these facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed was quashed and the order was 'set aside. Appeal is allowed.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
