https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770146 Penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained where liability was based mainly on statements recorded under section 108 without adequate procedural safeguards and without corroboration of the appellant's role. The record showed that the appellant had not booked the consignment, prepared the export documents, procured the goods, or handled them, and his name did not appear in the co-accused's statement. Mere presence at the premises was held insufficient to fasten penalty, especially since the attempted export was intercepted before completion. Relief was therefore granted. en-us Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770146 Penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained where liability was based mainly on statements recorded under section 108 without adequate procedural safeguards and without corroboration of the appellant's role. The record showed that the appellant had not booked the consignment, prepared the export documents, procured the goods, or handled them, and his name did not appear in the co-accused's statement. Mere presence at the premises was held insufficient to fasten penalty, especially since the attempted export was intercepted before completion. Relief was therefore granted. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770146