https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327911 Penalty under the Customs Act cannot rest on suspicion or conjecture; it requires clear evidence establishing the person's statutory liability and the relevant preconditions for penalty. On the facts noted, no incriminating material conclusively proved that Shri Kiran Choksi was the importer or de facto owner, so the basis for penalty under Section 114A failed. As to Shri Pragnesh Jain, the record showed only that he filed documents supplied by the importer and facilitated clearance, without evidence of any knowing act or omission amounting to contravention, so penalty under Section 112 was not sustainable. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the dropping of penalties against both persons. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327911 Penalty under the Customs Act cannot rest on suspicion or conjecture; it requires clear evidence establishing the person's statutory liability and the relevant preconditions for penalty. On the facts noted, no incriminating material conclusively proved that Shri Kiran Choksi was the importer or de facto owner, so the basis for penalty under Section 114A failed. As to Shri Pragnesh Jain, the record showed only that he filed documents supplied by the importer and facilitated clearance, without evidence of any knowing act or omission amounting to contravention, so penalty under Section 112 was not sustainable. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the dropping of penalties against both persons. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327911