https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44827 The High Court held that the absence of specific rules under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act does not absolve liability when evidence indicates the owner or Master's involvement in smuggling activities. The Court emphasized the importance of taking necessary precautions and complying with existing rules to claim exoneration. It differentiated between various judgments, highlighting the need for specific evidence to establish lack of knowledge in smuggling. The Court ruled that non-framing of rules cannot be used as a defense when the involvement of the owner or Master in smuggling is evident, upholding the penalty imposed by the Customs Tribunal. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:09:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44827 The High Court held that the absence of specific rules under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act does not absolve liability when evidence indicates the owner or Master's involvement in smuggling activities. The Court emphasized the importance of taking necessary precautions and complying with existing rules to claim exoneration. It differentiated between various judgments, highlighting the need for specific evidence to establish lack of knowledge in smuggling. The Court ruled that non-framing of rules cannot be used as a defense when the involvement of the owner or Master in smuggling is evident, upholding the penalty imposed by the Customs Tribunal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44827