Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Penalty under section 112(b) was unsustainable because the essential element of knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation was not proved. The appellant had purchased the branded watches locally from the importer, was not involved in the import declaration process, and stated that the price revision followed the importer's price list. In the absence of documentary evidence showing awareness of the retail sale price declared at import or the duty position, the Tribunal held that mens rea could not be presumed. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 112(b) was unsustainable because the essential element of knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation was not proved. The appellant had purchased the branded watches locally from the importer, was not involved in the import declaration process, and stated that the price revision followed the importer's price list. In the absence of documentary evidence showing awareness of the retail sale price declared at import or the duty position, the Tribunal held that mens rea could not be presumed. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.