Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free...

Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.