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>Court Overturns Customs Act Penalty and Interest, Deems Imposition Unjustified</h1> The court found that the penalty and interest imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act were unjustified as the duty liability had ... Penalty Issues: Liability of appellants to pay penalty and interest under Section 112 of the Customs ActAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed against the impugned order-in-original regarding the liability of the appellants to pay penalty and interest under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. The appellants imported inputs under an Advance Licence and availed duty exemption under Notification No. 82/95 but failed to fulfill the export obligation, leading to payment of the entire duty amount upon demand.3. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) for violation of Section 111(o) without specifying the provision of the Act or Notification under which the penalty was ordered.4. The main contention was that confiscation of goods was not warranted for breach of export obligation, and the penalty and interest imposed were not justified as the duty liability had been discharged.5. Referring to a previous case, it was established that in similar circumstances, the penalty under Section 112(a) was not applicable when the duty liability had been fulfilled despite the breach of export obligation.6. The exemption Notification No. 82/95 did not provide for confiscation of goods or penalties in case of export obligation breach, only requiring payment of duty leviable on the goods, which the appellants had already paid.7. Therefore, the imposition of penalty and interest on the appellants was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.8. The appeal of the appellants was allowed, with any consequential relief permissible under the law granted.