https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783869 Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act on a customs broker for alleged abetment of attempted smuggling was unsustainable because the authorities relied on statements without establishing admissibility under s.138B and without granting sought cross-examination, rendering the evidentiary basis untenable. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no independent evidence of any intentional act constituting abetment. Alleged breach of due diligence obligations under CBLR, at most, amounted to negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling; further, reliance on s.112(b) ingredients without pleading or proposal was impermissible. The penalty order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783869 Penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act on a customs broker for alleged abetment of attempted smuggling was unsustainable because the authorities relied on statements without establishing admissibility under s.138B and without granting sought cross-examination, rendering the evidentiary basis untenable. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no independent evidence of any intentional act constituting abetment. Alleged breach of due diligence obligations under CBLR, at most, amounted to negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling; further, reliance on s.112(b) ingredients without pleading or proposal was impermissible. The penalty order 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=783869