https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432224 Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and connected circumstantial evidence were treated as admissible material to prove abetment in customs penalty proceedings on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Penalty under Section 114 was upheld because the respondent was found to have aided the export fraud and illegal remittance scheme, making the goods liable to confiscation. Physical absence from India did not defeat liability, as the Act applied to conduct with a substantial nexus to India and acts done through an agent could bind the principal. The penalty was restored and the questions of law were answered for the Revenue. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:44:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432224 Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and connected circumstantial evidence were treated as admissible material to prove abetment in customs penalty proceedings on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Penalty under Section 114 was upheld because the respondent was found to have aided the export fraud and illegal remittance scheme, making the goods liable to confiscation. Physical absence from India did not defeat liability, as the Act applied to conduct with a substantial nexus to India and acts done through an agent could bind the principal. The penalty was restored and the questions of law were answered for the Revenue. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432224