https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287413 The appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on alleged connivance in undervaluing imported goods, was allowed. The Member (J) concluded that there was insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the undervaluation scheme, noting that the appellant was not involved in the clearance process of the goods. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) was deemed unwarranted, and the impugned order was set aside, overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2020 11:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287413 The appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on alleged connivance in undervaluing imported goods, was allowed. The Member (J) concluded that there was insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the undervaluation scheme, noting that the appellant was not involved in the clearance process of the goods. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) was deemed unwarranted, and the impugned order was set aside, overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287413