Imposition of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Who ...

Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act Dropped Due to Insufficient Evidence Identifying Actual Importers.

April 7, 2020

Case Laws Customs AT

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Who is the importer - No deponent has clearly mentioned that they were fully aware of the fact of the appellants being the owner of the goods and have merely mentioned that they were told so by the other concerned persons. There is virtually no evidence in the present case so as to show that the appellant were the actual importer of the goods - No penalty - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Imposition of penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Who ...

Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act Dropped Due to Insufficient Evidence Identifying Actual Importers.

April 7, 2020

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on an employee of the Customs Broker - classification of imported goods - The commissioner has recorded as finding...

Imposition of penalties u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 on Customs broker - import of used Multifunction Digital Photocopiers and Printers - it is alleged that the...

CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of Customs Act 1962 against appellant for alleged gold smuggling. Court found insufficient evidence beyond...

The key points are: misdeclaration of goods by the importer cannot render the Customs House Agent (CHA) vicariously liable for penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962....

Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found...

Customs broker's license revoked, entire security deposit forfeited, penalty levied for contravening Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) & 10(n) of...

Penalty levied u/s 112(b) of Customs Act challenged due to lack of proper evidence. Appellant obtained PNR movement documents from steamer agent for cargo movement from...

Penalty imposed u/s 112a(ii) of Customs Act for smuggling through mis-declaration and undervaluation. Extent of duty evasion uncertain but forensic evidence established...

Non-fulfilment of export obligation under Advance Authorization by importer company. Penalty imposed on directors solely based on their shareholding and directorship,...

Penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - Mis-declaration of goods - The goods stand absolutely confiscated without giving an option for redemption - The importer seems to...

Mis-declaration of quantity and value of goods in SEZ unit - penalty u/ss 112(a) and 114A of Customs Act 1962. Option for reduced 25% penalty u/s 114A to be extended if...

The CESTAT held that the appellant could not be implicated solely based on the retracted confessional statement of the co-accused. The telephonic call between them was...

Appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was exonerated from penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act. CESTAT held no evidence of appellant's abetment in misdeclaration of...

Levy of penalty on Customs Broker u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - It was alleged that the appellant dealt with unauthorized person instead of dealing with the...

CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act for forged Special Import Licenses lacked clear evidence...

Quick Updates: