https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780288 CESTAT NEW DELHI - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act on the whole-time director. The Tribunal held there was no evidence that the director did or omitted any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation under section 111, and the adjudicating authority's reliance on section 108 statements (without following section 138B procedure) amounted to conjecture. Because the penalty rested on surmise rather than proof, the impugned order insofar as it penalized the director was quashed. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780288 CESTAT NEW DELHI - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act on the whole-time director. The Tribunal held there was no evidence that the director did or omitted any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation under section 111, and the adjudicating authority's reliance on section 108 statements (without following section 138B procedure) amounted to conjecture. Because the penalty rested on surmise rather than proof, the impugned order insofar as it penalized the director was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780288