<?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 allowed: penalties under s.112(i) set aside for CHA absent proof of knowledge or active participation</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93899</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under s.112(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the CHA. The Tribunal held that a licensed Customs House Agent acts on importer-supplied documents and verification pursuant to the Bill of Entry, and liability for illicit importation cannot be imputed absent proof of knowledge or active participation in mis-declaration. No evidence demonstrated the CHA&#039;s awareness of pack marking or involvement in the offending importation, nor was the CHA&#039;s statement recorded in confiscation proceedings; by contrast, prior authority upholding penalty turned on an admitted voluntary statement of mis-declaration. Consequentially, penalties as to the CHA were annulled and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:35:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed: penalties under s.112(i) set aside for CHA absent proof of knowledge or active participation</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93899</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under s.112(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the CHA. The Tribunal held that a licensed Customs House Agent acts on importer-supplied documents and verification pursuant to the Bill of Entry, and liability for illicit importation cannot be imputed absent proof of knowledge or active participation in mis-declaration. No evidence demonstrated the CHA&#039;s awareness of pack marking or involvement in the offending importation, nor was the CHA&#039;s statement recorded in confiscation proceedings; by contrast, prior authority upholding penalty turned on an admitted voluntary statement of mis-declaration. Consequentially, penalties as to the CHA were annulled and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:35:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>