https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120424 Customs officers' lapses in assessment and examination were held insufficient to establish abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the absence of evidence of deliberate participation, prior knowledge, collusion, or any benefit derived by the officers, the omissions were treated at most as negligence or dereliction of duty. Because knowing aid or abetment was not proved, penal action under Section 112(a) could not be sustained, and the consequential penalty under Section 114A also failed. The penalty proceedings against the officers were therefore not sustainable. en-us Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120424 Customs officers' lapses in assessment and examination were held insufficient to establish abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the absence of evidence of deliberate participation, prior knowledge, collusion, or any benefit derived by the officers, the omissions were treated at most as negligence or dereliction of duty. Because knowing aid or abetment was not proved, penal action under Section 112(a) could not be sustained, and the consequential penalty under Section 114A also failed. The penalty proceedings against the officers were therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120424