Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
DRI officers were held competent to issue SCNs in drawback fraud cases, applying the Tribunal's later precedent upholding DRI jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to SCN validity failed. Deliberate post-LEO alteration of Bills of Lading to change the port of discharge was treated as fraudulent conduct affecting Customs risk assessment and therefore constituted misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the export declarations were held tainted. A company was held to fall within "person" by applying the General Clauses Act where the Customs Act is silent; accordingly, corporate liability under s.114 was maintainable in law. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the customs broker, penalty under s.114(i) was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR action. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.