https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108050 The appeals by AAI's employee and United Airlines were allowed, while AAI's appeal was rejected. Penalties on AAI were upheld for failing to prevent removal of goods without proper clearance, under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. However, penalties on United Airlines were set aside due to lack of evidence linking them to smuggling activities. The Tribunal differentiated liability concerning available and missing consignments, confirming penalties on AAI but overturning the penalty on its employee for lack of evidence connecting him to the missing consignments. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:08:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108050 The appeals by AAI's employee and United Airlines were allowed, while AAI's appeal was rejected. Penalties on AAI were upheld for failing to prevent removal of goods without proper clearance, under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. However, penalties on United Airlines were set aside due to lack of evidence linking them to smuggling activities. The Tribunal differentiated liability concerning available and missing consignments, confirming penalties on AAI but overturning the penalty on its employee for lack of evidence connecting him to the missing consignments. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108050