Export Support intervention INSIGHT launched to provide non financial capacity building, trade intelligence and pilot support with defined funding and...
Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act was examined on the allegation that the appellant abetted undervaluation and duty evasion by lack of due care in maintaining the importer's accounts. The SCN and the impugned order did not explain how any act or omission by the appellant amounted to abetment, and reliance on the appellant's statement was untenable as its admissibility under s.138B was not established; in any event, the statement only described courier-led clearance on supplier invoices and did not support a finding of abetment. With no evidence of intentional conduct, instigation, or conspiracy, the finding reduced at most to negligence, which cannot sustain s.112(a) penalty. Penalty was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act was examined on the allegation that the appellant abetted undervaluation and duty evasion by lack of due care in maintaining the importer's accounts. The SCN and the impugned order did not explain how any act or omission by the appellant amounted to abetment, and reliance on the appellant's statement was untenable as its admissibility under s.138B was not established; in any event, the statement only described courier-led clearance on supplier invoices and did not support a finding of abetment. With no evidence of intentional conduct, instigation, or conspiracy, the finding reduced at most to negligence, which cannot sustain s.112(a) penalty. Penalty was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
