https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332011 The appeal was partly allowed, and the penalty imposed on the appellant Customs House Agent (CHA) was reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 30,000. The Member (Judicial) found that while the CHA was not directly involved in aiding and abetting the fraudulent claim of drawback, they were held guilty for violating regulations by not following proper procedures, leading to an attempt at fraudulent drawback claim by the exporting firm. The reduction in penalty was based on the lack of established mens rea or malafide intention on the part of the CHA. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Sep 2016 12:22:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332011 The appeal was partly allowed, and the penalty imposed on the appellant Customs House Agent (CHA) was reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 30,000. The Member (Judicial) found that while the CHA was not directly involved in aiding and abetting the fraudulent claim of drawback, they were held guilty for violating regulations by not following proper procedures, leading to an attempt at fraudulent drawback claim by the exporting firm. The reduction in penalty was based on the lack of established mens rea or malafide intention on the part of the CHA. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332011