1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>CESTAT Chennai: Penalty under Section 114(i) set aside for lending IE code in attempted export case</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI set aside the penalty imposition of Rs. Four lakhs each under Section 114(i) of the Act on Shri M. Natarajan and ... - Issues involved: Challenge of penalty imposition u/s 114(i) of the Act for lending IE code leading to attempted export of prohibited goods.Summary:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI heard the challenge against the penalty imposition of Rs. Four lakhs each u/s 114(i) of the Act on Shri M. Natarajan, Partner of M/s. Sri Olima International, Tuticorin, for lending his IE code to Shri C.T.R. Ramasamy of M/s. M.R. Trading Company, resulting in the attempted export of 'Red Sander logs' instead of 'Aluminium Sulphate'. The Tribunal found no evidence to show that the appellants engaged in any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation u/s 113 or abetted such actions. It was determined that the lending of the IE code was not done with the knowledge of its misuse for smuggling red sanders, and the manufacturer of aluminium sulphate was also unaware of the misuse. Consequently, the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act were deemed inapplicable, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposition and allowing the appeals of the two appellants.(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)