https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422864 A penalty under Section 112(a) could not be sustained against the customs broker because the show cause notice was confined to customs broker regulatory violations and the record showed no evidence of sharing benefits from the fraudulent imports; mere failure to verify the importer's antecedents was insufficient without proof of abetment or conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation, so the penalty was set aside. The intermediary who handed over documents for filing the bill of entry was, however, liable under Section 112(a) because the goods were counterfeit and the documents facilitated the import, but the penalty was found excessive and was substantially reduced. en-us Thu, 19 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2022 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422864 A penalty under Section 112(a) could not be sustained against the customs broker because the show cause notice was confined to customs broker regulatory violations and the record showed no evidence of sharing benefits from the fraudulent imports; mere failure to verify the importer's antecedents was insufficient without proof of abetment or conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation, so the penalty was set aside. The intermediary who handed over documents for filing the bill of entry was, however, liable under Section 112(a) because the goods were counterfeit and the documents facilitated the import, but the penalty was found excessive and was substantially reduced. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422864