https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785853 Contravention alleged for handling and storage of hazardous cargo under HCCAR regulations was rejected because the available evidence does not establish breach of regulation 6(1)(i) or 6(1)(q), and the adjudicator could not rely on speculative or unattributable conclusions. The tribunal emphasised the duty of an adjudicating authority to respect enquiry findings or put a party on notice before departing from them, holding that invoking a general penal provision to override specific regulatory penalty regimes was impermissible. Consequence: penalty invocation under the general provision was set aside and the appeal allowed, with liability principles for cargo service providers preserved to the extent supported by evidence. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:20:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785853 Contravention alleged for handling and storage of hazardous cargo under HCCAR regulations was rejected because the available evidence does not establish breach of regulation 6(1)(i) or 6(1)(q), and the adjudicator could not rely on speculative or unattributable conclusions. The tribunal emphasised the duty of an adjudicating authority to respect enquiry findings or put a party on notice before departing from them, holding that invoking a general penal provision to override specific regulatory penalty regimes was impermissible. Consequence: penalty invocation under the general provision was set aside and the appeal allowed, with liability principles for cargo service providers preserved to the extent supported by evidence. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785853