https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780182 CESTAT Kol. allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.112 Customs Act. The appellant, found to have acted only as a broker for a commission, was not shown by any corroborative evidence to have participated in alleged over-invoicing and circular trading; inculpatory statements were retracted and were not tested by examination/cross-examination as required by s.138B read with s.108, making reliance on them impermissible. Further, no prohibition, duty liability, or duty evasion under s.112 was established, so the penalty was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:00:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780182 CESTAT Kol. allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.112 Customs Act. The appellant, found to have acted only as a broker for a commission, was not shown by any corroborative evidence to have participated in alleged over-invoicing and circular trading; inculpatory statements were retracted and were not tested by examination/cross-examination as required by s.138B read with s.108, making reliance on them impermissible. Further, no prohibition, duty liability, or duty evasion under s.112 was established, so the penalty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780182