https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759014 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962, concluding that the appellant should not be held liable for the misdeclaration of goods. The Tribunal determined that vicarious responsibility could not be imposed on the appellant without tangible evidence of a positive act or omission rendering the goods liable for confiscation. The decision emphasized the necessity of proving such acts for penalty imposition, relying on precedents that highlighted the insufficiency of assumptions or presumptions for penal actions against abettors. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was annulled. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759014 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agent (CHA) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962, concluding that the appellant should not be held liable for the misdeclaration of goods. The Tribunal determined that vicarious responsibility could not be imposed on the appellant without tangible evidence of a positive act or omission rendering the goods liable for confiscation. The decision emphasized the necessity of proving such acts for penalty imposition, relying on precedents that highlighted the insufficiency of assumptions or presumptions for penal actions against abettors. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was annulled. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759014