https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774024 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for attempted export of red sanders wood disguised as ragi. The tribunal held that penalty under Section 114(i) being penalty in personam requires proof of mens rea and intentional act by the appellant. Customs authorities failed to establish that appellant knowingly assisted in loading red sanders or tampering with container. The appellant's exculpatory statement remained uncontroverted, and no evidence showed intentional involvement in the smuggling attempt. The tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling that preponderance of probability favored the appellant. en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:34:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774024 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for attempted export of red sanders wood disguised as ragi. The tribunal held that penalty under Section 114(i) being penalty in personam requires proof of mens rea and intentional act by the appellant. Customs authorities failed to establish that appellant knowingly assisted in loading red sanders or tampering with container. The appellant's exculpatory statement remained uncontroverted, and no evidence showed intentional involvement in the smuggling attempt. The tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling that preponderance of probability favored the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774024