https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109712 A declaration to Customs that an aircraft was not intended for registration in India was found inconsistent with the surrounding correspondence, purchase agreement, applications to aviation and import authorities, and the bond and bank guarantee, all of which showed an intention to retain and operate the aircraft in India. The misstatement was treated as deliberate in substance because intention may be inferred from the whole course of conduct and contemporaneous documents, and later payment of duty did not erase the earlier false declaration. Rule 58(6)(b) of the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1920 did not protect a case where the aircraft was meant to be registered in India from the outset; confiscation and penalty were upheld, with the penalty reduced. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:01:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109712 A declaration to Customs that an aircraft was not intended for registration in India was found inconsistent with the surrounding correspondence, purchase agreement, applications to aviation and import authorities, and the bond and bank guarantee, all of which showed an intention to retain and operate the aircraft in India. The misstatement was treated as deliberate in substance because intention may be inferred from the whole course of conduct and contemporaneous documents, and later payment of duty did not erase the earlier false declaration. Rule 58(6)(b) of the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1920 did not protect a case where the aircraft was meant to be registered in India from the outset; confiscation and penalty were upheld, with the penalty reduced. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109712