Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3261 to 3280 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 112(b)(ii) could not be sustained where the only basis was a higher amount charged in earlier clearances, because that circumstance created at most a presumption and did not prove knowledge or conscious participation in improper importation. The Tribunal noted that the Embassy documents were genuine and that the appellant's role was limited to forwarding email and documents to the customs broker who handled clearance. In the absence of material showing involvement in duty evasion or importation of goods liable to confiscation, the penalty was without authority of law and was set aside.
Penalty under section 112(b)(ii) could not be sustained where the only basis was a higher amount charged in earlier clearances, because that circumstance created at most a presumption and did not prove knowledge or conscious participation in improper importation. The Tribunal noted that the Embassy documents were genuine and that the appellant's role was limited to forwarding email and documents to the customs broker who handled clearance. In the absence of material showing involvement in duty evasion or importation of goods liable to confiscation, the penalty was without authority of law and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
