https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798642 Penalty under Sections 114(i) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires more than deficient verification of an exporter's antecedents or KYC particulars. Section 114(i) requires an identifiable act, omission or abetment with a statutory nexus to goods becoming liable to confiscation. Where a Customs Broker obtained authorisation, verified the exporter's IEC through DGFT and ICEGATE, and reviewed an earlier shipping bill, absent evidence of involvement in substitution, stuffing, transport, tampering, false documentation, collusion, container control or facilitation of prohibited exports, a KYC lapse remains regulatory. Section 117 cannot independently impose a residuary penalty without an established statutory contravention. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:51:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798642 Penalty under Sections 114(i) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires more than deficient verification of an exporter's antecedents or KYC particulars. Section 114(i) requires an identifiable act, omission or abetment with a statutory nexus to goods becoming liable to confiscation. Where a Customs Broker obtained authorisation, verified the exporter's IEC through DGFT and ICEGATE, and reviewed an earlier shipping bill, absent evidence of involvement in substitution, stuffing, transport, tampering, false documentation, collusion, container control or facilitation of prohibited exports, a KYC lapse remains regulatory. Section 117 cannot independently impose a residuary penalty without an established statutory contravention. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798642