https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362115 A customs house agent was held not liable for misdeclaration or for failing to detect false documents because it had relied on the importer's invoice and papers, and the fabrication was discovered only after physical examination of the goods; the charge on that ground was not proved. However, the duty to verify the importer's antecedents was treated as part of the agent's due diligence, and independent verification was required despite IEC details. Because the importer's address and mobile number were found fictitious, that charge was proved and forfeiture of security was sustained. The appeal therefore failed, with no basis to interfere with the impugned order. en-us Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:24:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362115 A customs house agent was held not liable for misdeclaration or for failing to detect false documents because it had relied on the importer's invoice and papers, and the fabrication was discovered only after physical examination of the goods; the charge on that ground was not proved. However, the duty to verify the importer's antecedents was treated as part of the agent's due diligence, and independent verification was required despite IEC details. Because the importer's address and mobile number were found fictitious, that charge was proved and forfeiture of security was sustained. The appeal therefore failed, with no basis to interfere with the impugned order. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362115