https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750864 Penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that the person knowingly did, omitted to do, or abetted an act rendering goods liable to confiscation. On the stated facts, the customs broker's mere filing of documents on the importers' instructions, without evidence of connivance, direct participation, or deliberate assistance in the import of restricted goods, was insufficient. The prior confiscation findings against the importers did not by themselves justify penalty on the broker, and the absence of proceedings under the Customs Broker Regulations further supported relief. The penalty against the customs broker was therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750864 Penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that the person knowingly did, omitted to do, or abetted an act rendering goods liable to confiscation. On the stated facts, the customs broker's mere filing of documents on the importers' instructions, without evidence of connivance, direct participation, or deliberate assistance in the import of restricted goods, was insufficient. The prior confiscation findings against the importers did not by themselves justify penalty on the broker, and the absence of proceedings under the Customs Broker Regulations further supported relief. The penalty against the customs broker was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750864