https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83751 The appellant was accused of attempting to clear restricted goods fraudulently under Section 112 of the Customs Act by filing a Bill of Entry through a Customs House Agent employee. Despite denial and claims of mistaken identity, the order in original upheld the penalty. However, a tribunal member disagreed, stating insufficient evidence and lack of confrontation with the accuser. A third member supported this view, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the imposed penalty of Rs. 35,000. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:04:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83751 The appellant was accused of attempting to clear restricted goods fraudulently under Section 112 of the Customs Act by filing a Bill of Entry through a Customs House Agent employee. Despite denial and claims of mistaken identity, the order in original upheld the penalty. However, a tribunal member disagreed, stating insufficient evidence and lack of confrontation with the accuser. A third member supported this view, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the imposed penalty of Rs. 35,000. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83751