https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428774 The Tribunal found no evidence of pilferage against the appellant, the custodian of imported goods, and held that they were not liable to pay customs duty. The charge of violating Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 was not upheld due to lack of evidence of pilferage. The proposal for suspension or revocation of approval was dropped, and the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act was set aside. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and they were entitled to consequential benefits. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:19:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428774 The Tribunal found no evidence of pilferage against the appellant, the custodian of imported goods, and held that they were not liable to pay customs duty. The charge of violating Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 was not upheld due to lack of evidence of pilferage. The proposal for suspension or revocation of approval was dropped, and the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act was set aside. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and they were entitled to consequential benefits. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428774