https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791675 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the appellant was only a co-noticee on the same factual foundation as other noticees and the earlier penalties against similarly placed parties had already been set aside. The alleged undervaluation also failed because there was no independent evidence of collusion, extra payment, or suppression of value; a price comparison with another importer was held insufficient on its own. On those facts, the appellate relief was granted and the penalty order was set aside. en-us Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2026 09:15:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791675 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the appellant was only a co-noticee on the same factual foundation as other noticees and the earlier penalties against similarly placed parties had already been set aside. The alleged undervaluation also failed because there was no independent evidence of collusion, extra payment, or suppression of value; a price comparison with another importer was held insufficient on its own. On those facts, the appellate relief was granted and the penalty order was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791675