https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334740 The Appellate Tribunal differentiated between Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, noting that Section 114AA applies to importers using false materials, not agents like the appellant. Despite the appellant's limited role and lack of direct involvement in customs processes, the Tribunal imposed a penalty of 50,000 under Section 112(a) due to the appellant's involvement in facilitating under-declaration of values through duplicate invoices. The penalty under Section 114AA was set aside, emphasizing the agent's accountability under Section 112(a) for actions that could render goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. en-us Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334740 The Appellate Tribunal differentiated between Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, noting that Section 114AA applies to importers using false materials, not agents like the appellant. Despite the appellant's limited role and lack of direct involvement in customs processes, the Tribunal imposed a penalty of 50,000 under Section 112(a) due to the appellant's involvement in facilitating under-declaration of values through duplicate invoices. The penalty under Section 114AA was set aside, emphasizing the agent's accountability under Section 112(a) for actions that could render goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334740