https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253133 Penalty was sustained against both the firm and the partner for importing second-hand looms in breach of the EXIM Policy 2002-07 and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, after the authorities found the goods were older than declared and that the year markings had been manipulated. The import was treated as liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the partner was held liable under Section 112(a) for abetting the firm's import offence. Concurrent findings of deliberate fabrication of records were accepted, and no jurisdictional error was found in imposing penalty on both parties. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253133 Penalty was sustained against both the firm and the partner for importing second-hand looms in breach of the EXIM Policy 2002-07 and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, after the authorities found the goods were older than declared and that the year markings had been manipulated. The import was treated as liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the partner was held liable under Section 112(a) for abetting the firm's import offence. Concurrent findings of deliberate fabrication of records were accepted, and no jurisdictional error was found in imposing penalty on both parties. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253133