<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (12) TMI 512 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112845</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Custom House Agent under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for tampering with the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner found mens rea established in the clerk&#039;s actions, rejecting the appellant&#039;s plea of innocence. Despite the appellant&#039;s argument citing a judgment on employee-specific liability, the Tribunal emphasized the director&#039;s knowledge of irregularities and failure to prevent them, attributing responsibility to the director. The penalty imposition was deemed valid based on the director&#039;s complicity in allowing the clerk&#039;s actions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 11:08:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 512 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112845</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Custom House Agent under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for tampering with the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner found mens rea established in the clerk&#039;s actions, rejecting the appellant&#039;s plea of innocence. Despite the appellant&#039;s argument citing a judgment on employee-specific liability, the Tribunal emphasized the director&#039;s knowledge of irregularities and failure to prevent them, attributing responsibility to the director. The penalty imposition was deemed valid based on the director&#039;s complicity in allowing the clerk&#039;s actions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>