https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449625 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld for intentional abetment of fraudulent imports and misdeclaration. The Tribunal relied on the appellant's own statement, extensive communication with the principal operator, financial and social assistance received from him, and the appellant's role in facilitating imports through a non-EDI port under his control, which showed active participation in clearance of goods liable to confiscation. The objection that denial of cross-examination vitiated the proceedings was rejected because the material on record, including the appellant's statement and corroborating surrounding evidence, was sufficient to support the allegations. The challenge therefore failed and the penalty was sustained. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449625 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld for intentional abetment of fraudulent imports and misdeclaration. The Tribunal relied on the appellant's own statement, extensive communication with the principal operator, financial and social assistance received from him, and the appellant's role in facilitating imports through a non-EDI port under his control, which showed active participation in clearance of goods liable to confiscation. The objection that denial of cross-examination vitiated the proceedings was rejected because the material on record, including the appellant's statement and corroborating surrounding evidence, was sufficient to support the allegations. The challenge therefore failed and the penalty was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449625