https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84278 Grossly inflated export value and an incorrect goods description were treated as prima facie non-compliance with the truthful declaration requirement in the shipping bill. The export-value restriction under FERA, read with the relevant notification and section 67 of FERA, was treated as a prohibition for customs purposes, bringing the goods within the scope of prohibited goods. On that basis, the goods were held prima facie liable to confiscation under section 113(d) of the Customs Act and the appellants prima facie liable to penalty under section 114(i). The applications for stay were disposed of by directing only partial pre-deposit, with different amounts fixed according to the apparent role of each appellant. en-us Thu, 27 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:19:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84278 Grossly inflated export value and an incorrect goods description were treated as prima facie non-compliance with the truthful declaration requirement in the shipping bill. The export-value restriction under FERA, read with the relevant notification and section 67 of FERA, was treated as a prohibition for customs purposes, bringing the goods within the scope of prohibited goods. On that basis, the goods were held prima facie liable to confiscation under section 113(d) of the Customs Act and the appellants prima facie liable to penalty under section 114(i). The applications for stay were disposed of by directing only partial pre-deposit, with different amounts fixed according to the apparent role of each appellant. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84278