https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775401 Penalty under s.114(iii) Customs Act, 1962 imposed on CHA was set aside as the department failed to proceed under CHA Regulations, which are distinct from the Customs Act; thus, the CHA firm was not liable. However, penalty on the employee was upheld, as evidence established his connivance in fraudulent export of overvalued goods misdeclared as cycle parts, attracting confiscation under s.113. His claim of limited role was rejected. The penalty on the employee was reduced from Rs.75 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs to align with the offense's gravity. Appeal disposed accordingly. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775401 Penalty under s.114(iii) Customs Act, 1962 imposed on CHA was set aside as the department failed to proceed under CHA Regulations, which are distinct from the Customs Act; thus, the CHA firm was not liable. However, penalty on the employee was upheld, as evidence established his connivance in fraudulent export of overvalued goods misdeclared as cycle parts, attracting confiscation under s.113. His claim of limited role was rejected. The penalty on the employee was reduced from Rs.75 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs to align with the offense's gravity. Appeal disposed accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775401