https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113296 The appellant was accused of abetting in the removal of Metallic Polyester Films from a warehouse, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, upon review, it was found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's involvement in the illicit activity. Discrepancies between the type of film mentioned in documents and the film received by the appellant raised doubts about their complicity. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, overturning the initial decision to impose the penalty under the Customs Act. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 17:24:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113296 The appellant was accused of abetting in the removal of Metallic Polyester Films from a warehouse, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, upon review, it was found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's involvement in the illicit activity. Discrepancies between the type of film mentioned in documents and the film received by the appellant raised doubts about their complicity. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, overturning the initial decision to impose the penalty under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113296