https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121000 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could not be imposed on the original exporter for alleged breach of Condition No. (vi) of Notification No. 204/92-Cus., because that condition restricted transferability only where export goods were manufactured using Modvat credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A. The imported goods were brought by the transferee licence-holder, and any dispute over transferability endorsements had to be pursued under the appellate mechanism of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 112 also required confiscability under Section 111; since duty demand and confiscation against the importer were dropped, the basis for penalty was absent. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:24:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121000 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could not be imposed on the original exporter for alleged breach of Condition No. (vi) of Notification No. 204/92-Cus., because that condition restricted transferability only where export goods were manufactured using Modvat credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A. The imported goods were brought by the transferee licence-holder, and any dispute over transferability endorsements had to be pursued under the appellate mechanism of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 112 also required confiscability under Section 111; since duty demand and confiscation against the importer were dropped, the basis for penalty was absent. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121000