https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89459 CESTAT held that the customs broker was not liable for penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no direct evidence demonstrating intentional duty evasion. The appellant correctly advised on tariff classification, did not file manipulated documents, and any procedural failures were regulatory matters under Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. The tribunal found no justification for imposing penalties in the absence of proven knowledge or intentional misconduct, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the original order. en-us Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:02 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89459 CESTAT held that the customs broker was not liable for penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no direct evidence demonstrating intentional duty evasion. The appellant correctly advised on tariff classification, did not file manipulated documents, and any procedural failures were regulatory matters under Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. The tribunal found no justification for imposing penalties in the absence of proven knowledge or intentional misconduct, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the original order. Highlights Customs Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:02 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89459