TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
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>Courier operator penalty under Customs law set aside where knowledge of importer's mis-declaration was not established.</h1> Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on a courier operator unless the record establishes knowledge of, or ... Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) - Requirement of knowledge for imposition of penalty on a courier agent - anti-dumping duty. Whether penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the appellant-courier in absence of knowledge of mis-declaration by the importer - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal recorded that earlier proceedings and a separate show cause for revocation of the courier licence were dropped against the appellant because the record did not establish the appellant's involvement in or knowledge of the importer's mis-declaration. The adjudicatory finding of absence of knowledge meant the appellant did not have the requisite culpability to attract penal liability under Section 112(a)(ii). On that basis the Tribunal concluded that penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) was not imposable on the appellant. [Paras 7, 8, 9] Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) is not imposable on the appellant in view of absence of knowledge of mis-declaration; the impugned penalty is set aside. Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the penalty imposed under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is dropped and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief, if any. Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the courier operator for consignments mis-declared by the importer.Analysis: The adjudicatory record shows prior proceedings and an earlier adjudication in which the penal proposals against the courier operator were dropped on the ground that the appellant did not have knowledge of the importer's mis-declaration. The proceedings for revocation of courier licence and forfeiture of security were also adjudicated and dropped on the basis that awareness of the importer's wrongdoing by the courier operator was not established. The Tribunal examined whether the material on record establishes contumacious conduct or knowledge on the part of the courier operator sufficient to attract Section 112(a)(ii) penal liability under the Customs Act, 1962.Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable on the courier operator; the impugned order imposing the penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.Ratio Decidendi: Absence of knowledge or contumacious conduct by a courier operator in relation to an importer's mis-declaration precludes imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
