https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212674 A Customs House Agent could not be penalised for document substitution carried out by employees in connection with an importer's misdeclaration because there was no evidence of the CHA's knowledge, connivance, approval, or direct participation. The Tribunal held that regulatory provisions on supervision and employee responsibility under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations do not sustain penal liability in the absence of proof linking the CHA itself to the wrongful acts. Reliance on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act did not cure that evidentiary gap. The forfeiture of the security deposit was therefore set aside and the penalty was vacated. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212674 A Customs House Agent could not be penalised for document substitution carried out by employees in connection with an importer's misdeclaration because there was no evidence of the CHA's knowledge, connivance, approval, or direct participation. The Tribunal held that regulatory provisions on supervision and employee responsibility under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations do not sustain penal liability in the absence of proof linking the CHA itself to the wrongful acts. Reliance on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act did not cure that evidentiary gap. The forfeiture of the security deposit was therefore set aside and the penalty was vacated. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212674