https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783870 Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the appellant allegedly abetted undervaluation and duty evasion by failing to exercise due care in maintaining the importer's accounts. The Tribunal held that neither the SCN nor the impugned order explained the manner of abetment, and reliance on the appellant's statement was untenable as its admissibility under s.138B was not established; even otherwise, the statement merely described courier-led import formalities and did not evidence knowing instigation, conspiracy, or abetment. With no independent evidence of intentional acts and the finding amounting at most to negligence, the penalty under s.112(a) was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 18:30:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783870 Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the appellant allegedly abetted undervaluation and duty evasion by failing to exercise due care in maintaining the importer's accounts. The Tribunal held that neither the SCN nor the impugned order explained the manner of abetment, and reliance on the appellant's statement was untenable as its admissibility under s.138B was not established; even otherwise, the statement merely described courier-led import formalities and did not evidence knowing instigation, conspiracy, or abetment. With no independent evidence of intentional acts and the finding amounting at most to negligence, the penalty under s.112(a) was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783870