https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340086 The penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetting an illicit transaction during cargo import were set aside. The judge found that the impugned order lacked substantial evidence to establish the appellants' liability for penalty, emphasizing the requirement of clear evidence of abetment. The appellants' withdrawal before the detection of mis-declaration and the absence of evidence linking them to the importer or the offending goods supported their case. The judgment highlights the necessity of tangible evidence to attribute abetment and impose penalties under the Customs Act. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340086 The penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetting an illicit transaction during cargo import were set aside. The judge found that the impugned order lacked substantial evidence to establish the appellants' liability for penalty, emphasizing the requirement of clear evidence of abetment. The appellants' withdrawal before the detection of mis-declaration and the absence of evidence linking them to the importer or the offending goods supported their case. The judgment highlights the necessity of tangible evidence to attribute abetment and impose penalties under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340086