https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373460 The court upheld the penalty imposed by CESTAT on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for facilitating fraud. Despite the appellant's arguments claiming limited involvement and lack of liability for the Customs House Agent's actions, the court found evidence of active participation in the fraudulent activities. The appellant's failure to verify essential documents and past involvement in similar transactions demonstrated a deeper involvement than mere facilitation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty and disposing of all pending applications. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:33:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373460 The court upheld the penalty imposed by CESTAT on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for facilitating fraud. Despite the appellant's arguments claiming limited involvement and lack of liability for the Customs House Agent's actions, the court found evidence of active participation in the fraudulent activities. The appellant's failure to verify essential documents and past involvement in similar transactions demonstrated a deeper involvement than mere facilitation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty and disposing of all pending applications. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373460