Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Body-worn camera recordings for Customs baggage checks: new SOP mandates full passenger-interaction capture, secure storage, privacy safeguards, stric...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
