https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118222 The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order confirming a duty demand and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that no duty deposit was needed as the goods were under Customs control. The detention memo did not cover the specific machines listed in the duty demand, making it irrelevant. The seized goods, listed in Annexures 'A' and 'B,' were considered under Customs control despite being in the appellant's custody. The explanation to Section 114A clarified that no penalty under Section 112 should be imposed. An interim stay of the order was granted, requiring a 50% penalty deposit within eight weeks. Compliance reporting was set for 5-7-2006. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:03:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118222 The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order confirming a duty demand and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that no duty deposit was needed as the goods were under Customs control. The detention memo did not cover the specific machines listed in the duty demand, making it irrelevant. The seized goods, listed in Annexures 'A' and 'B,' were considered under Customs control despite being in the appellant's custody. The explanation to Section 114A clarified that no penalty under Section 112 should be imposed. An interim stay of the order was granted, requiring a 50% penalty deposit within eight weeks. Compliance reporting was set for 5-7-2006. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118222