https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93436 Penalty on a corporate customs house agent based on employee conduct cannot be sustained unless the responsible employees are identified and their liability is first determined. Where the notice attributes the alleged misconduct to named employees acting for the company, the penalty order must also set out the specific acts or omissions attributed to the appellant and the reasons why that conduct attracts penalty; a bare assertion of awareness is insufficient. The penalty against the appellant was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the notice against the appellant and the two employees in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:07:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93436 Penalty on a corporate customs house agent based on employee conduct cannot be sustained unless the responsible employees are identified and their liability is first determined. Where the notice attributes the alleged misconduct to named employees acting for the company, the penalty order must also set out the specific acts or omissions attributed to the appellant and the reasons why that conduct attracts penalty; a bare assertion of awareness is insufficient. The penalty against the appellant was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the notice against the appellant and the two employees in accordance with law. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93436