https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329628 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because abetment was not established. The consignment was examined and no prohibited or incriminating material was found, so mere procedural non-compliance with pre-shipment inspection certificate requirements did not justify confiscation-related penalty. In the absence of proof that the steamer delivery agent knowingly facilitated import of non-importable goods, and with no mens rea shown, the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329628 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because abetment was not established. The consignment was examined and no prohibited or incriminating material was found, so mere procedural non-compliance with pre-shipment inspection certificate requirements did not justify confiscation-related penalty. In the absence of proof that the steamer delivery agent knowingly facilitated import of non-importable goods, and with no mens rea shown, the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329628