https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351648 The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the mobile phones were smuggled under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Due to the lack of individual phone details in the Bills of Entry and insufficient evidence, the allegation of smuggling was not established. Additionally, the Tribunal held that imposing penalties and confiscation under Section 112 was erroneous without proving smuggling. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal modified the Final Order, declaring the goods not liable for confiscation or penalties. The Tribunal distinguished a previous Delhi High Court ruling involving different facts, granting the appellant consequential benefits in this case. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:32:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351648 The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the mobile phones were smuggled under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Due to the lack of individual phone details in the Bills of Entry and insufficient evidence, the allegation of smuggling was not established. Additionally, the Tribunal held that imposing penalties and confiscation under Section 112 was erroneous without proving smuggling. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal modified the Final Order, declaring the goods not liable for confiscation or penalties. The Tribunal distinguished a previous Delhi High Court ruling involving different facts, granting the appellant consequential benefits in this case. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351648