https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116870 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants due to significant gaps in the investigation, including the absence of evidence linking them to the seized currency and the non-supply of crucial documents. Penalties under Section 114(i) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, although the confiscation of the currency was not objected to by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt' to export, concluding that the appellants' actions did not constitute an 'attempt' as required by the Customs Act. en-us Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:46:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116870 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants due to significant gaps in the investigation, including the absence of evidence linking them to the seized currency and the non-supply of crucial documents. Penalties under Section 114(i) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, although the confiscation of the currency was not objected to by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt' to export, concluding that the appellants' actions did not constitute an 'attempt' as required by the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116870