Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed under Sections...
Penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 117 Customs Act quashed due to lack of evidence; negligence proceedings directed under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the appellant for allegedly exporting waste clothes disguised as ladies' scarves to claim duty drawback. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner's own findings indicated no evidence of abetment, omission, or contravention warranting confiscation or penalty under the cited provisions. Since the prerequisites for imposing penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 117 were not met, the penalties were held unsustainable and consequently quashed. However, the appellant was found guilty of negligence attracting action under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, and the department was directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under those regulations. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed under Section 114(iii) and the penalty under Section 117 were set aside.
The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the appellant for allegedly exporting waste clothes disguised as ladies' scarves to claim duty drawback. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner's own findings indicated no evidence of abetment, omission, or contravention warranting confiscation or penalty under the cited provisions. Since the prerequisites for imposing penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 117 were not met, the penalties were held unsustainable and consequently quashed. However, the appellant was found guilty of negligence attracting action under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, and the department was directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under those regulations. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed under Section 114(iii) and the penalty under Section 117 were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
