https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273758 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for assisting in fraudulent clearance of goods at a concessional rate of duty using a fictitious firm. Despite the appellant's claim of good faith and lack of knowledge, evidence showed awareness of the fraudulent transactions, leading to the rejection of the good faith defense. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's involvement in aiding the fraudulent activities justified the penalty, ultimately dismissing the appeal. en-us Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:11:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273758 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for assisting in fraudulent clearance of goods at a concessional rate of duty using a fictitious firm. Despite the appellant's claim of good faith and lack of knowledge, evidence showed awareness of the fraudulent transactions, leading to the rejection of the good faith defense. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's involvement in aiding the fraudulent activities justified the penalty, ultimately dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273758