https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260982 The appellant, a manufacturer-exporter, contested a penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act for allegedly attempting to smuggle prohibited goods. The appellant argued that their responsibility ended once goods were sealed at the ICD, citing Circular No. 57/98-Cus. Differences in payment methods and goods movement processes were highlighted to differentiate the case from previous rulings on aiding and abetting in smuggling. The appellant's status as a first-time exporter receiving advance payment was emphasized to challenge the allegations. The judgment analyzed these arguments but ultimately upheld the penalty, considering the specific circumstances and procedural responsibilities outlined in the Circular. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Oct 2017 15:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260982 The appellant, a manufacturer-exporter, contested a penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act for allegedly attempting to smuggle prohibited goods. The appellant argued that their responsibility ended once goods were sealed at the ICD, citing Circular No. 57/98-Cus. Differences in payment methods and goods movement processes were highlighted to differentiate the case from previous rulings on aiding and abetting in smuggling. The appellant's status as a first-time exporter receiving advance payment was emphasized to challenge the allegations. The judgment analyzed these arguments but ultimately upheld the penalty, considering the specific circumstances and procedural responsibilities outlined in the Circular. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260982