https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464741 HC allowed the appeal, holding the penalty under s.114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable because there was no evidence the appellant had knowledge of or actively participated in the alleged wrongful drawback scheme. Although the appellant failed to comply with Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984, liability under s.114(iii) arises only where the omission would render goods liable for confiscation under s.113, which was not established. The court found the appellant's status/name was misused by others; substantial questions of law answered for the appellant and against the Department. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:57:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464741 HC allowed the appeal, holding the penalty under s.114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable because there was no evidence the appellant had knowledge of or actively participated in the alleged wrongful drawback scheme. Although the appellant failed to comply with Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984, liability under s.114(iii) arises only where the omission would render goods liable for confiscation under s.113, which was not established. The court found the appellant's status/name was misused by others; substantial questions of law answered for the appellant and against the Department. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464741