https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422736 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable because the alleged breach was confined to the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations and no specific act or omission was attributed that made the goods liable to confiscation as improperly imported. The tribunal noted that Section 112(a) operates only where the statutory ingredients of improper importation and confiscability are satisfied; a mere regulatory violation, without a nexus to improper importation, is insufficient. As duty and interest had already been paid, the import could not be treated as improper on the facts, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2022 21:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422736 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable because the alleged breach was confined to the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations and no specific act or omission was attributed that made the goods liable to confiscation as improperly imported. The tribunal noted that Section 112(a) operates only where the statutory ingredients of improper importation and confiscability are satisfied; a mere regulatory violation, without a nexus to improper importation, is insufficient. As duty and interest had already been paid, the import could not be treated as improper on the facts, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422736