https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93311 CESTAT held that the appellant, a freight forwarder, lacked nexus or beneficial ownership of the impugned imports and no mala fide was attributable to him; documentary evidence established resignation from directorship before the relevant period and third-party execution of supplier documents, undermining the Revenue's allegations of connivance. The assertion of receipt of foreign exchange outside banking channels was uncorroborated and premised on assumptions; consequently the appellant could not be implicated for remittance irregularities. Further, the Tribunal found the alleged mis-declaration occurred in a foreign territory, rendering penal provisions of ss.112(a)(i), 112(b)(i) and 114AA, Customs Act, 1962, inapplicable as a matter of law. Penalties of Rs.50,00,000 each under those sections were set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:31 +0530 Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93311 CESTAT held that the appellant, a freight forwarder, lacked nexus or beneficial ownership of the impugned imports and no mala fide was attributable to him; documentary evidence established resignation from directorship before the relevant period and third-party execution of supplier documents, undermining the Revenue's allegations of connivance. The assertion of receipt of foreign exchange outside banking channels was uncorroborated and premised on assumptions; consequently the appellant could not be implicated for remittance irregularities. Further, the Tribunal found the alleged mis-declaration occurred in a foreign territory, rendering penal provisions of ss.112(a)(i), 112(b)(i) and 114AA, Customs Act, 1962, inapplicable as a matter of law. Penalties of Rs.50,00,000 each under those sections were set aside and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Customs Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:31 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93311