https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353489 Restricted goods imported in dismantled and repacked form under misleading descriptions were treated as misdeclared and undervalued, supporting confiscation because the goods required special import compliance and the challenge to classification and valuation could not survive independently of the importer's finalised dispute. Penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act were sustained against the banks, Philips India and the Mody group entities because correspondence, invoices and statements showed a coordinated import arrangement and knowledge of the restricted nature of the goods. Penalties on employee-appellants were set aside, as their participation in the transactions in the course of employment was not enough without proof of personal gain or sufficient culpable involvement. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 09:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353489 Restricted goods imported in dismantled and repacked form under misleading descriptions were treated as misdeclared and undervalued, supporting confiscation because the goods required special import compliance and the challenge to classification and valuation could not survive independently of the importer's finalised dispute. Penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act were sustained against the banks, Philips India and the Mody group entities because correspondence, invoices and statements showed a coordinated import arrangement and knowledge of the restricted nature of the goods. Penalties on employee-appellants were set aside, as their participation in the transactions in the course of employment was not enough without proof of personal gain or sufficient culpable involvement. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353489