https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772262 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal of a customs broker challenging penalties under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. The broker was penalized for allegedly accepting an IEC from someone who wasn't a director of the importing firm. The tribunal held that customs brokers act on documents provided by importers, and without evidence of connivance, penalty under section 114AA couldn't be imposed. The tribunal noted there's no bar under Customs Act for lending IEC codes, making such transactions non-punishable. Additionally, statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible as section 138B procedures weren't followed. The penalties were deemed unsustainable due to lack of independent findings and absence of evidence showing knowledge or connivance by the broker. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 12:51:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772262 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal of a customs broker challenging penalties under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. The broker was penalized for allegedly accepting an IEC from someone who wasn't a director of the importing firm. The tribunal held that customs brokers act on documents provided by importers, and without evidence of connivance, penalty under section 114AA couldn't be imposed. The tribunal noted there's no bar under Customs Act for lending IEC codes, making such transactions non-punishable. Additionally, statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible as section 138B procedures weren't followed. The penalties were deemed unsustainable due to lack of independent findings and absence of evidence showing knowledge or connivance by the broker. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772262