https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778680 CESTAT set aside penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) imposed on the co-noticees. The principal importer had settled under ss.127B/127C; there was no investigation of the foreign supplier and no material proving the freight forwarder's connivance in under-valuation or mis-declaration, so his penalty was quashed. The CHA/G-Card holder's penalty was also set aside because he acted on shipping documents, lacked knowledge of consignment contents or any unlawful receipt, and regulatory action under CHA norms, not s.112, would have been appropriate. Appeals of the appellants allowed. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778680 CESTAT set aside penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) imposed on the co-noticees. The principal importer had settled under ss.127B/127C; there was no investigation of the foreign supplier and no material proving the freight forwarder's connivance in under-valuation or mis-declaration, so his penalty was quashed. The CHA/G-Card holder's penalty was also set aside because he acted on shipping documents, lacked knowledge of consignment contents or any unlawful receipt, and regulatory action under CHA norms, not s.112, would have been appropriate. Appeals of the appellants allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778680