TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalties under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable against the courier agency in the absence of proof of prior knowledge of the contents of the consignments and in view of the restrictions on opening export packages under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010.
Analysis: The penalty was founded on detention memos and endorsements made by Wild Life Inspectors, but only a few memos contained such endorsements and no independent substantiation was produced for the remaining consignments. The Department did not examine the Wild Life Inspectors despite a request for cross-examination, nor did it obtain any opinion from the competent forest experts. The Regulations require the sender's declaration as to contents and value, and prohibit opening export packages except with permission of the proper officer, showing that the courier agency had a limited role in checking contents. In these circumstances, the allegation of prior knowledge on the part of the appellants remained unproved.
Conclusion: Penalties under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not invocable, and the appellants were entitled to relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
