https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764173 The court determined that the Customs House Agent (CHA) was not complicit in the mis-declaration of imported goods, initially declared as calcium carbonate but found to be AA batteries. It found insufficient evidence to support the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The court criticized the Tribunal and Adjudicating Authority for their reliance on assumptions without substantial evidence, leading to the penalties being set aside. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity for concrete evidence in customs violation cases. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jan 2025 08:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764173 The court determined that the Customs House Agent (CHA) was not complicit in the mis-declaration of imported goods, initially declared as calcium carbonate but found to be AA batteries. It found insufficient evidence to support the imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The court criticized the Tribunal and Adjudicating Authority for their reliance on assumptions without substantial evidence, leading to the penalties being set aside. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity for concrete evidence in customs violation cases. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764173