Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The key points are: misdeclaration of goods by the importer cannot render the Customs House Agent (CHA) vicariously liable for penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. To impose penalty, there must be a positive act or omission by the CHA rendering the goods liable for confiscation. Mere abetment by the CHA's employees is insufficient without evidence of illegal acts. The Tribunal's decision in Rajesh Maikhuri's case supports this view. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant CHA is unsustainable and set aside.
The key points are: misdeclaration of goods by the importer cannot render the Customs House Agent (CHA) vicariously liable for penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. To impose penalty, there must be a positive act or omission by the CHA rendering the goods liable for confiscation. Mere abetment by the CHA's employees is insufficient without evidence of illegal acts. The Tribunal's decision in Rajesh Maikhuri's case supports this view. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant CHA is unsustainable and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
