https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796374 Penalty for abetment of attempted prohibited export requires admissible evidence of a positive act of assistance or knowing participation. The CESTAT Bangalore found no evidence that the exporter, its managing partner, employees, or the customs house agent loaded or tampered with the container, knew of substituted red sanders, or participated in clandestine stuffing; penalties were therefore set aside. Deficiencies in the confiscation order did not warrant remand because confiscation was unchallenged and no evidentiary basis existed to reconsider penalty against the customs house agent. The Department's appeal for de novo adjudication was dismissed. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796374 Penalty for abetment of attempted prohibited export requires admissible evidence of a positive act of assistance or knowing participation. The CESTAT Bangalore found no evidence that the exporter, its managing partner, employees, or the customs house agent loaded or tampered with the container, knew of substituted red sanders, or participated in clandestine stuffing; penalties were therefore set aside. Deficiencies in the confiscation order did not warrant remand because confiscation was unchallenged and no evidentiary basis existed to reconsider penalty against the customs house agent. The Department's appeal for de novo adjudication was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796374