https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362109 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for alleged undervaluation of imported goods. The Tribunal found that there was a lack of concrete evidence proving the appellant's direct involvement in the undervaluation scheme. It was noted that the undervaluation was discovered through an independent investigation, and the appellant, as a Customs House Agent, could not be held responsible solely based on the documents provided by the importer. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the absence of direct evidence implicating the appellant in the undervaluation. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:24:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362109 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for alleged undervaluation of imported goods. The Tribunal found that there was a lack of concrete evidence proving the appellant's direct involvement in the undervaluation scheme. It was noted that the undervaluation was discovered through an independent investigation, and the appellant, as a Customs House Agent, could not be held responsible solely based on the documents provided by the importer. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the absence of direct evidence implicating the appellant in the undervaluation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362109