https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170742 The court held that the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to issue the show cause notice and impose penalties was challenged by the petitioners. The court found that the petitioners were not liable for the non-fulfillment of export obligations by the 3rd respondent. The imposition of penalties under Section 11 of the Foreign Trade Act was deemed invalid as the petitioners were not involved in any contraventions. Additionally, the court clarified the ownership of the property, stating that the petitioners had acquired it from a different entity, not the 3rd respondent. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders imposing liability on the petitioners. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:37:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170742 The court held that the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to issue the show cause notice and impose penalties was challenged by the petitioners. The court found that the petitioners were not liable for the non-fulfillment of export obligations by the 3rd respondent. The imposition of penalties under Section 11 of the Foreign Trade Act was deemed invalid as the petitioners were not involved in any contraventions. Additionally, the court clarified the ownership of the property, stating that the petitioners had acquired it from a different entity, not the 3rd respondent. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders imposing liability on the petitioners. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170742