https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99241 Availability of an alternative appeal under Section 128 did not bar writ interference where the impugned penalty order suffered from breach of natural justice and absence of a foundational jurisdictional finding. The Court held that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not rest on a mere assumption that non-physical verification by a customs broker established culpability; there had to be a factual finding of commission or abetment of an act rendering goods liable to confiscation. It further held that binding precedents cited by the petitioner were not considered or distinguished, which vitiated the order. The penalty was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after notice. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99241 Availability of an alternative appeal under Section 128 did not bar writ interference where the impugned penalty order suffered from breach of natural justice and absence of a foundational jurisdictional finding. The Court held that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not rest on a mere assumption that non-physical verification by a customs broker established culpability; there had to be a factual finding of commission or abetment of an act rendering goods liable to confiscation. It further held that binding precedents cited by the petitioner were not considered or distinguished, which vitiated the order. The penalty was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after notice. Highlights Customs Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99241