https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75990 In customs penalty proceedings, abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances on a preponderance of probabilities. The appellant's acts of watching parcels, informing the intermediary of their arrival, and not alerting customs to missing mandatory declarations were treated as corroborative of knowledge and intentional facilitation of duty evasion. On that material, the finding that the appellant was party to the conspiracy and intentionally aided clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty was held to be a plausible factual conclusion, so the finding was not perverse and the penalty was sustained. en-us Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Feb 2011 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75990 In customs penalty proceedings, abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances on a preponderance of probabilities. The appellant's acts of watching parcels, informing the intermediary of their arrival, and not alerting customs to missing mandatory declarations were treated as corroborative of knowledge and intentional facilitation of duty evasion. On that material, the finding that the appellant was party to the conspiracy and intentionally aided clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty was held to be a plausible factual conclusion, so the finding was not perverse and the penalty was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75990