https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120895 Vicarious liability for an employee's alleged forgery could not be fastened on the appellant in the absence of evidence that he knew of, authorised, or participated in the act, particularly where he was not in India when the forgery was said to have occurred. Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was also found unavailable for an alleged breach arising under the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, since a penalty provision under one statute cannot be used to punish a violation under a distinct statutory regime without legal authority. The penalty was therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:29:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120895 Vicarious liability for an employee's alleged forgery could not be fastened on the appellant in the absence of evidence that he knew of, authorised, or participated in the act, particularly where he was not in India when the forgery was said to have occurred. Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was also found unavailable for an alleged breach arising under the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, since a penalty provision under one statute cannot be used to punish a violation under a distinct statutory regime without legal authority. The penalty was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120895