<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Appeal dismissed; penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b), CA 1962 upheld for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation; G-card holder absolved.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93254</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the appeal and upheld CESTAT&#039;s imposition of penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the CA, 1962 for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation, finding no substantial question of law. The G-card holder (Appellant A) was absolved by CESTAT for lack of signature or interaction; the H-card holder (Appellant B) was held complicit based on admissions and prior involvement in clearance of similar consignments; the supervisor (Appellant C) was held liable for active supervision and approval of clearance documents. CESTAT&#039;s sympathetic reduction of penalties was endorsed; appellants must deposit the imposed penalties within three months. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed; penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b), CA 1962 upheld for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation; G-card holder absolved.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93254</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the appeal and upheld CESTAT&#039;s imposition of penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the CA, 1962 for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation, finding no substantial question of law. The G-card holder (Appellant A) was absolved by CESTAT for lack of signature or interaction; the H-card holder (Appellant B) was held complicit based on admissions and prior involvement in clearance of similar consignments; the supervisor (Appellant C) was held liable for active supervision and approval of clearance documents. CESTAT&#039;s sympathetic reduction of penalties was endorsed; appellants must deposit the imposed penalties within three months. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>