https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330522 The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on a courier company and its employee for alleged customs violations. The Tribunal found that the charge of abetment was not substantiated, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intentional aiding in improper importation. It noted inconsistencies in the treatment of the courier company and customs officers regarding abetment allegations. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving intentional aiding for abetment charges and concluded that the penalties were unjustified in this case. The appeals were allowed, highlighting the significance of evidence and intention in such matters. en-us Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330522 The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on a courier company and its employee for alleged customs violations. The Tribunal found that the charge of abetment was not substantiated, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intentional aiding in improper importation. It noted inconsistencies in the treatment of the courier company and customs officers regarding abetment allegations. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving intentional aiding for abetment charges and concluded that the penalties were unjustified in this case. The appeals were allowed, highlighting the significance of evidence and intention in such matters. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330522