https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262223 Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained where the evidence showed abetment of an attempted export of antiquities misdeclared as auto parts. The appellant's Section 108 statement, supported by corroborative statements, indicated involvement in arranging use of another company's IE code and participating in transport, packing, and export documentation. Those facts established knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods and the false declaration made to Customs. As the goods were prohibited antiquities under the Antiquities & Art Treasure Act, 1972, the concealment and misdeclaration supported liability for attempted illegal export. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Aug 2015 08:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262223 Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained where the evidence showed abetment of an attempted export of antiquities misdeclared as auto parts. The appellant's Section 108 statement, supported by corroborative statements, indicated involvement in arranging use of another company's IE code and participating in transport, packing, and export documentation. Those facts established knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods and the false declaration made to Customs. As the goods were prohibited antiquities under the Antiquities & Art Treasure Act, 1972, the concealment and misdeclaration supported liability for attempted illegal export. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262223