https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291294 Penalty on a customs broker and its director under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was found unsustainable because the record did not show concrete evidence of connivance, active assistance, or abetment in the importer's alleged misuse of EPCG authorisation or diversion of duty-free capital goods. The broker's role was limited to facilitating clearance of import consignments at the port, and it was not responsible for post-clearance installation or end-use monitoring. In the absence of material showing mala fides or active participation, the statutory requirements for penalty were not met, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:20:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291294 Penalty on a customs broker and its director under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was found unsustainable because the record did not show concrete evidence of connivance, active assistance, or abetment in the importer's alleged misuse of EPCG authorisation or diversion of duty-free capital goods. The broker's role was limited to facilitating clearance of import consignments at the port, and it was not responsible for post-clearance installation or end-use monitoring. In the absence of material showing mala fides or active participation, the statutory requirements for penalty were not met, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291294