https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327932 Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act was held unsustainable against a Customs House Agent because the record did not show that he knowingly or intentionally used a false or incorrect document in a material particular. The first invoice contained discrepancies, the CHA sought correction before filing the bill of entry, and the corrected invoice was used for clearance. The allegation that the CHA knew the actual nature or prohibited character of the goods was not established, and the claimed breach of Rule 13(d), (e) and (o) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 failed for want of specific reasoning or proof of omission to place correct facts before the department. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327932 Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act was held unsustainable against a Customs House Agent because the record did not show that he knowingly or intentionally used a false or incorrect document in a material particular. The first invoice contained discrepancies, the CHA sought correction before filing the bill of entry, and the corrected invoice was used for clearance. The allegation that the CHA knew the actual nature or prohibited character of the goods was not established, and the claimed breach of Rule 13(d), (e) and (o) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 failed for want of specific reasoning or proof of omission to place correct facts before the department. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327932