https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312291 The appeals were allowed by the court as the penalties imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 lacked merit. The court found that the show cause notice failed to establish that the appellants, including a merchant exporter, manufacturer, partners, an accountant, and a shipping line agent, had active knowledge or involvement in the substitution of goods during transit. The transporter admitted to the substitution, but no direct involvement of the appellants was proven. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unjustified due to the absence of evidence showing the appellants' active participation or knowledge. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:45:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312291 The appeals were allowed by the court as the penalties imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 lacked merit. The court found that the show cause notice failed to establish that the appellants, including a merchant exporter, manufacturer, partners, an accountant, and a shipping line agent, had active knowledge or involvement in the substitution of goods during transit. The transporter admitted to the substitution, but no direct involvement of the appellants was proven. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unjustified due to the absence of evidence showing the appellants' active participation or knowledge. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312291