https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90014 CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Department alleged appellant operated as syndicate facilitating clearance of mis-declared/undervalued goods and allowed co-conspirator use of office premises and computer. Tribunal held no evidence substantiated allegations that appellant facilitated clearance of mis-declared goods or was connected with subject goods. Allowing usage of office premises and computer cannot constitute connivance in alleged offence. Investigation failed to establish conditions for invoking penalty provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA. Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant provided assistance in clearance of contraband goods was speculative without evidentiary support. Penalties set aside as unsustainable. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:28 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90014 CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Department alleged appellant operated as syndicate facilitating clearance of mis-declared/undervalued goods and allowed co-conspirator use of office premises and computer. Tribunal held no evidence substantiated allegations that appellant facilitated clearance of mis-declared goods or was connected with subject goods. Allowing usage of office premises and computer cannot constitute connivance in alleged offence. Investigation failed to establish conditions for invoking penalty provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA. Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant provided assistance in clearance of contraband goods was speculative without evidentiary support. Penalties set aside as unsustainable. Highlights Customs Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90014