https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775919 Refusal to permit cross-examination of co-noticees did not vitiate the adjudication where the request was made belatedly, no necessity was shown, and multiple personal hearings were ignored; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained, however, because the adjudicating authority did not record a clear finding that the noticee knowingly participated in or abetted the misdeclaration of goods; mere references to abetment or instrumental role were insufficient. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on the existing record. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775919 Refusal to permit cross-examination of co-noticees did not vitiate the adjudication where the request was made belatedly, no necessity was shown, and multiple personal hearings were ignored; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained, however, because the adjudicating authority did not record a clear finding that the noticee knowingly participated in or abetted the misdeclaration of goods; mere references to abetment or instrumental role were insufficient. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on the existing record. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775919