https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784417 Penalty under s.114(i) of the Customs Act was examined on the allegation that the customs broker failed to conduct KYC verification and antecedent checks, facilitating fraudulent export of prohibited goods. The Tribunal held that identical charges had already been adjudicated under the CBLR, 2013 and expressly dropped by the competent customs authority for want of proof; therefore, re-imposition of penalty on the same unproved allegation was legally unsustainable, and the s.114(i) penalty was set aside. Penalty under s.114AA was held to require proof that the broker used or submitted forged/fabricated documents; in the absence of evidence of connivance, consideration, or any concrete role, and given the broker's lack of authority to inspect sealed containers, the s.114AA penalty was also set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784417 Penalty under s.114(i) of the Customs Act was examined on the allegation that the customs broker failed to conduct KYC verification and antecedent checks, facilitating fraudulent export of prohibited goods. The Tribunal held that identical charges had already been adjudicated under the CBLR, 2013 and expressly dropped by the competent customs authority for want of proof; therefore, re-imposition of penalty on the same unproved allegation was legally unsustainable, and the s.114(i) penalty was set aside. Penalty under s.114AA was held to require proof that the broker used or submitted forged/fabricated documents; in the absence of evidence of connivance, consideration, or any concrete role, and given the broker's lack of authority to inspect sealed containers, the s.114AA penalty was also set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784417