https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780405 CESTAT held the four appellants liable and rejected all appeals, finding mens rea in their conduct. The custodian/agents admitted receipt, computerized entry and instructions not to release the containers, proving awareness of prohibition under s.45(2)(b). Their actions facilitated illegal removal, rendering the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(j); s.112(a) penalties were properly invoked for acts/omissions abetting confiscation. The Tribunal found their role equal to the second consignee's, affirmed re-confiscation on the basis of illegal removal, and upheld the imposed penalties as appropriate. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780405 CESTAT held the four appellants liable and rejected all appeals, finding mens rea in their conduct. The custodian/agents admitted receipt, computerized entry and instructions not to release the containers, proving awareness of prohibition under s.45(2)(b). Their actions facilitated illegal removal, rendering the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(j); s.112(a) penalties were properly invoked for acts/omissions abetting confiscation. The Tribunal found their role equal to the second consignee's, affirmed re-confiscation on the basis of illegal removal, and upheld the imposed penalties as appropriate. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780405