https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52404 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the baggage had already been examined and cleared, duties, fine and penalty had been recovered, and no independent material showed malfeasance, non-feasance or misfeasance by the Custom House Agent or its dock clerk. Once clearance was completed, the agent's function ended, so liability for aiding improper clearance could not be sustained. On the same factual record, the preventive prohibition order under the licensing regulations also failed because no actionable misconduct remained to support it. The penalties and prohibition were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:33:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52404 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the baggage had already been examined and cleared, duties, fine and penalty had been recovered, and no independent material showed malfeasance, non-feasance or misfeasance by the Custom House Agent or its dock clerk. Once clearance was completed, the agent's function ended, so liability for aiding improper clearance could not be sustained. On the same factual record, the preventive prohibition order under the licensing regulations also failed because no actionable misconduct remained to support it. The penalties and prohibition were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52404