https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757515 Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against a CHA firm where the alleged abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods rested only on non-compliance with KYC obligations under the CHALR, 2004. Abetment requires knowing assistance or encouragement in the illegal act, and the record contained no admission, statement, or other evidence showing that the firm knew the consignment concealed red sanders. A regulatory lapse under CHA obligations, without proof of knowledge, was insufficient to establish abetment or justify penalty. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Aug 2024 09:06:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757515 Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against a CHA firm where the alleged abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods rested only on non-compliance with KYC obligations under the CHALR, 2004. Abetment requires knowing assistance or encouragement in the illegal act, and the record contained no admission, statement, or other evidence showing that the firm knew the consignment concealed red sanders. A regulatory lapse under CHA obligations, without proof of knowledge, was insufficient to establish abetment or justify penalty. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757515