Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act - vicarious liability ...

Penalty Waived for Appellant u/s 112(a) of Customs Act Due to Lack of Employer Negligence Evidence.

July 17, 2023

Case Laws Customs AT

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act - vicarious liability of appellant / Pre-Shipment Inspection Agency - Nothing has been brought on record as to show, how due diligence on the part of the employer (located miles away, from employee) is lacking, specially when it has prescribed percentage checks provided radiation detecting equipments as has been indicated by the investigation and also employed qualified persons - Penalty waived - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act - vicarious liability ...

Penalty Waived for Appellant u/s 112(a) of Customs Act Due to Lack of Employer Negligence Evidence.

July 17, 2023

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Medical negligence requires proving the medical professional lacked requisite qualification, skill or failed to exercise reasonable care. Mere unfavorable outcome or...

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

Penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission u/s 271(1)(c) - The petitioner argued against the penalty, citing lack of mens rea and the absence of evidence showing...

Smuggling - illegal importation of the seized gold - Confiscation of the gold and Indian currency - The Tribunal found no evidence linking the seized Indian currency to...

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...

Central Excise demands cannot be sustained solely based on confessional statements without corroborative documentary evidence. Retracted affidavits cannot be relied upon...

Clandestine removal - The department relied on statements, diaries, and records, which the appellants contested, citing coercion and lack of corroboration. The Tribunal...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide...

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...

Demand of duty and Levy of penalty - Levy of penalty on Director - Clandestine removal - The demand was based on data printouts retrieved from a third party's computer,...

Quantum of penalty levied under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - fraudulent export as goods were grossly undervalued - the appellant has acted only on the...

The High Court quashed penalty u/s E-Way Bill violation, classifying goods as ODC due to speed without intent to evade tax. Relying on precedent, mens rea is essential...

The issue revolves around the service tax levied on amounts received by an employee from the employer upon premature termination of the employment contract. The Tribunal...

Rejection of transaction value declared by appellant was improper as it lacked cogent and comparable evidence from contemporaneous imports. Adjudicating authority failed...

Quick Updates: