https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448725 CESTAT Chennai set aside penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 imposed on appellant for alleged smuggling of wild animal parts. Revenue failed to establish that consignments were prohibited goods, relying only on inconclusive visual examination by non-expert forest department inspector without written opinion or sample analysis results. Though appellant's presence at DHL office and providing identity proof raised questions, Revenue's failure to prove goods were prohibited elephant tail hair and leopard claws rendered penalty unsustainable. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:51:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448725 CESTAT Chennai set aside penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 imposed on appellant for alleged smuggling of wild animal parts. Revenue failed to establish that consignments were prohibited goods, relying only on inconclusive visual examination by non-expert forest department inspector without written opinion or sample analysis results. Though appellant's presence at DHL office and providing identity proof raised questions, Revenue's failure to prove goods were prohibited elephant tail hair and leopard claws rendered penalty unsustainable. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448725