https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52763 A Single Member Bench could hear an appeal against a Customs House Agent's penalty because Section 129C(4)(c) permits single-member jurisdiction where the fine or penalty does not exceed ten lakhs, and an internal office order could not override the statute. On merits, penalty under Section 112(b) for abetment failed because the record did not show positive evidence of intentional aid, knowledge, or active complicity; mere suspicion, negligence, or an assumed duty to verify the importer was insufficient. The abetment charge was therefore not proved and the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:24:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52763 A Single Member Bench could hear an appeal against a Customs House Agent's penalty because Section 129C(4)(c) permits single-member jurisdiction where the fine or penalty does not exceed ten lakhs, and an internal office order could not override the statute. On merits, penalty under Section 112(b) for abetment failed because the record did not show positive evidence of intentional aid, knowledge, or active complicity; mere suspicion, negligence, or an assumed duty to verify the importer was insufficient. The abetment charge was therefore not proved and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52763