<?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>Penalties under s.112(b) Customs Act 1962 set aside absent proof of mens rea in LCC paper imports</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94554</link>
    <description>CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person &quot;knew or had reason to believe&quot; the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer&#039;s fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalties under s.112(b) Customs Act 1962 set aside absent proof of mens rea in LCC paper imports</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94554</link>
      <description>CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person &quot;knew or had reason to believe&quot; the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer&#039;s fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>