https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126447 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a person rendered goods liable to confiscation, abetted that conduct, or dealt with the goods knowing or having reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. The finding of knowledge that the goods were being diverted was not established, and the customs house agent's alleged lapses under Regulations 14(d), 14(e) and 14(f) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, by themselves, did not satisfy the statutory ingredients for penalty. Penalty was held not sustainable against the appellant, and the impugned order was set aside insofar as the appellant was concerned. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:50:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126447 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a person rendered goods liable to confiscation, abetted that conduct, or dealt with the goods knowing or having reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. The finding of knowledge that the goods were being diverted was not established, and the customs house agent's alleged lapses under Regulations 14(d), 14(e) and 14(f) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, by themselves, did not satisfy the statutory ingredients for penalty. Penalty was held not sustainable against the appellant, and the impugned order was set aside insofar as the appellant was concerned. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126447