New LODR Fifth Amendment reshapes related party transaction rules, disclosure duties, and non-convertible security communication timelines under Sched...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
