https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124171 The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, from the original amount to Rs. 3.0 lacs. The appellant's lack of documentary evidence for lawful possession was noted, and the misrepresentation by the seller was considered in the penalty imposition. Despite the incorrect citation of the section, the penalty under Section 112 was upheld due to the confiscation under Section 111. The judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying goods' origin and clarity in penalty imposition under the Customs Act. en-us Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:12:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124171 The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, from the original amount to Rs. 3.0 lacs. The appellant's lack of documentary evidence for lawful possession was noted, and the misrepresentation by the seller was considered in the penalty imposition. Despite the incorrect citation of the section, the penalty under Section 112 was upheld due to the confiscation under Section 111. The judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying goods' origin and clarity in penalty imposition under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124171