https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87449 CESTAT analyzed a case involving a Customs House Agent (CHA) facing penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found the department's allegations against the CHA unsubstantiated, noting no credible evidence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misconduct. The tribunal emphasized that penalties can only be imposed with positive proof of the CHA's direct involvement in fraudulent activities. The department failed to record the appellant's statement or provide substantive evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the imposed penalties unsustainable and highlighting that procedural compliance alone does not constitute a punishable offense under customs regulations. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:08 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87449 CESTAT analyzed a case involving a Customs House Agent (CHA) facing penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found the department's allegations against the CHA unsubstantiated, noting no credible evidence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misconduct. The tribunal emphasized that penalties can only be imposed with positive proof of the CHA's direct involvement in fraudulent activities. The department failed to record the appellant's statement or provide substantive evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the imposed penalties unsustainable and highlighting that procedural compliance alone does not constitute a punishable offense under customs regulations. Highlights Customs Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:08 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87449