https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366774 The court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Customs Act, 1962, ruling in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence linking him to the illegal import activities. The court found discrepancies in the timeline of phone calls and import dates, undermining the link to illegal import, and emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to establish liability under the Customs Act. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, highlighting the necessity of substantial proof to penalize individuals involved in illegal import activities. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:10:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366774 The court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Customs Act, 1962, ruling in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence linking him to the illegal import activities. The court found discrepancies in the timeline of phone calls and import dates, undermining the link to illegal import, and emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to establish liability under the Customs Act. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, highlighting the necessity of substantial proof to penalize individuals involved in illegal import activities. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366774