https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84360 Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found inadequate to establish appellant's guilt regarding mis-declaration of goods and manipulation of import documents. No evidence produced by revenue to substantiate appellant's role in arranging finance, purchasing disputed goods from China, or providing manipulated import documents. CESTAT held statements of co-accused without independent corroboration insufficient legal evidence. Lack of evidence regarding appellant's physical acts related to disputed goods or signed declarations rendered penalties unjustified. Appeal allowed. en-us Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:30:10 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:30:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84360 Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found inadequate to establish appellant's guilt regarding mis-declaration of goods and manipulation of import documents. No evidence produced by revenue to substantiate appellant's role in arranging finance, purchasing disputed goods from China, or providing manipulated import documents. CESTAT held statements of co-accused without independent corroboration insufficient legal evidence. Lack of evidence regarding appellant's physical acts related to disputed goods or signed declarations rendered penalties unjustified. Appeal allowed. Highlights Customs Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:30:10 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84360