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 the appellants.
Analysis: Penalty under Section 112(a) requires a clear showing of an act or omission, or abetment in relation to the goods, supported by material establishing the person's culpable involvement. The record did not disclose a specific role of the appellants in the alleged attempt to clear the consignments, nor any positive evidence of mala fide intention or abetment. The reasoning applied to the appellants was found insufficient, especially where similar circumstances had earlier been held not to justify penal action against a CHA absent such evidence.
Conclusion: The levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable and was set aside; the appeals succeeded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
