https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81626 The key points are: misdeclaration of goods by the importer cannot render the Customs House Agent (CHA) vicariously liable for penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. To impose penalty, there must be a positive act or omission by the CHA rendering the goods liable for confiscation. Mere abetment by the CHA's employees is insufficient without evidence of illegal acts. The Tribunal's decision in Rajesh Maikhuri's case supports this view. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant CHA is unsustainable and set aside. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:10:19 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:10:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81626 The key points are: misdeclaration of goods by the importer cannot render the Customs House Agent (CHA) vicariously liable for penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. To impose penalty, there must be a positive act or omission by the CHA rendering the goods liable for confiscation. Mere abetment by the CHA's employees is insufficient without evidence of illegal acts. The Tribunal's decision in Rajesh Maikhuri's case supports this view. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant CHA is unsustainable and set aside. Highlights Customs Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:10:19 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81626