https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126095 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act requires a proven nexus between the alleged omission and the act rendering goods liable to confiscation, or a clear case of abetment. Here, the marker's role was limited to marking packages when presented in the shed area, but the wooden crates were never presented to him, and the Assistant Shed Superintendent had already been penalised for retaining them without reporting to customs. As no direct connection was shown between the marker's omission and the alleged smuggling activity, and no principal offender was identified, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:56:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126095 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act requires a proven nexus between the alleged omission and the act rendering goods liable to confiscation, or a clear case of abetment. Here, the marker's role was limited to marking packages when presented in the shed area, but the wooden crates were never presented to him, and the Assistant Shed Superintendent had already been penalised for retaining them without reporting to customs. As no direct connection was shown between the marker's omission and the alleged smuggling activity, and no principal offender was identified, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126095