https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73368 False retail vouchers, non-traceable purchasers and forged signatures were treated as sufficient evidence that the buyers were fictitious, allowing the statutory presumption of illegal export under Section 11M to operate. Once that presumption remained unrebutted, the goods were exposed to confiscation under the specified-goods scheme and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, and the challenge that Rule 5 was impracticable or unenforceable was rejected. On the penalty structure, the firm's separate penalty was deleted on the limited ground that it would unfairly burden an exonerated partner, while the penalties on the main partner and manager were maintained. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 15:02:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73368 False retail vouchers, non-traceable purchasers and forged signatures were treated as sufficient evidence that the buyers were fictitious, allowing the statutory presumption of illegal export under Section 11M to operate. Once that presumption remained unrebutted, the goods were exposed to confiscation under the specified-goods scheme and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, and the challenge that Rule 5 was impracticable or unenforceable was rejected. On the penalty structure, the firm's separate penalty was deleted on the limited ground that it would unfairly burden an exonerated partner, while the penalties on the main partner and manager were maintained. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 13 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73368