Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Penalty under Section 112 could not be sustained because the...
Penalty under Section 112 fails where knowledge, admissible statements, and incriminating evidence are not proved against the Customs Broker's director.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Penalty under Section 112 could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to establish that the Customs Broker's director had knowledge of, or reason to believe in, the alleged undervaluation. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had merely repeated the show cause notice without independent reasoning, and relied on an earlier finding that the appellant was unaware of the contravention and that the incriminating material pointed to others. Statements used against the appellant had not satisfied Section 138B and therefore lacked evidentiary value, while no incriminating documents were recovered from him or the firm to connect him with the violation. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Penalty under Section 112 could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to establish that the Customs Broker's director had knowledge of, or reason to believe in, the alleged undervaluation. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had merely repeated the show cause notice without independent reasoning, and relied on an earlier finding that the appellant was unaware of the contravention and that the incriminating material pointed to others. Statements used against the appellant had not satisfied Section 138B and therefore lacked evidentiary value, while no incriminating documents were recovered from him or the firm to connect him with the violation. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
