https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93945 Penalty was not sustainable where the record did not establish the appellant's involvement in the import or undervaluation of the goods, because neither the notice nor the adjudication order linked him to the relevant consignment. A duty demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, was also invalid under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, as the officer was not shown to be the proper officer for issuing the notice. Since the demand foundation failed, consequential penalties based on liability to confiscation under Section 111(m) also could not stand. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:26:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93945 Penalty was not sustainable where the record did not establish the appellant's involvement in the import or undervaluation of the goods, because neither the notice nor the adjudication order linked him to the relevant consignment. A duty demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, was also invalid under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, as the officer was not shown to be the proper officer for issuing the notice. Since the demand foundation failed, consequential penalties based on liability to confiscation under Section 111(m) also could not stand. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93945