https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355236 Redemption fine was held unsustainable where confiscated imported goods were ordered to be re-exported rather than cleared for home consumption, because the rationale for permitting domestic retention did not apply. Penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act were also examined in light of a wrong Bill of Entry description; while some culpability was found, the original penalties were reduced as excessive. The proprietary concerns and their proprietors could not both be penalised for the same proprietary transaction, and the person acting only as a broker or intermediary was not liable on the facts. The result was deletion of the redemption fine, reduction of penalties on the principal entities, and setting aside of the penalties on the individual appellants. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355236 Redemption fine was held unsustainable where confiscated imported goods were ordered to be re-exported rather than cleared for home consumption, because the rationale for permitting domestic retention did not apply. Penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act were also examined in light of a wrong Bill of Entry description; while some culpability was found, the original penalties were reduced as excessive. The proprietary concerns and their proprietors could not both be penalised for the same proprietary transaction, and the person acting only as a broker or intermediary was not liable on the facts. The result was deletion of the redemption fine, reduction of penalties on the principal entities, and setting aside of the penalties on the individual appellants. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355236