Imposition of penalty on CHA - Import of prohibited goods - ...

Customs

August 5, 2015

Imposition of penalty on CHA - Import of prohibited goods - After finding that the appellant has become unknowingly party to fraudulent import, the imposition of penalty is unjustified - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Imposition of penalty on CHA - Import of prohibited goods - ...

Customs

August 5, 2015

You may also like:

Imposition of penalty on CHA - The CHA is not supposed to verify the each and every aspect about the business of importer as the Inspector of Department or investigating agency.

Levy of Penalty on appellant –CHA u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act - export of prohibited goods or not - appellant is negligent in performing their duty as a CHA - as the...

Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) - employees of CHA - violation of import conditions - Goods diverted with his knowledge - The imposition of penalty on the Appellant,...

Import of consignment of consumer goods and household items from UAE - Mis declaration of goods - appellant is only an employee of the CHA firm - penalty reduced taking...

Levy of penalty and redemption fine - export of prohibited goods - The appellant made a wrong claim of export benefit under MEIS, being mis-advised by the CHA. However,...

Imposition of penalty - Mis-declaration of imported goods - Smuggling - penalty cannot be imposed both on the proprietor as well as the firm.

Imported Goods – Even if there was no malafide, the goods were liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty, if no licence was produced or non permission from the DGFT - AT

Levy of penalty - smuggling of Gold - baggage rules - The case involved the petitioner's challenge against the imposition of a penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b)...

Imposition of penalties u/s 112 (b) and 114AA On CHA - there is no element of mens rea or conscious knowledge which can be attributed to the CHA - CHA acted bona fide...

Import of prohibited goods - Multi-function Digital Photocopiers and Printers - imported goods are liable for confiscation but ordering absolute confiscation is not justified

Quick Updates: