https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361116 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained once penalty under Section 114A had been levied, because the proviso to Section 114A bars simultaneous penalty under Section 112. On the facts, the valuation adopted by the original authority was supported by documents, the proprietor's statement and payment of differential duty, so the penalty under Section 114A was maintained while the Section 112(a) penalty was deleted. The redemption fine was also upheld, as the revaluation of the imported goods under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act showed no infirmity in the quantum imposed. en-us Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2018 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361116 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not be sustained once penalty under Section 114A had been levied, because the proviso to Section 114A bars simultaneous penalty under Section 112. On the facts, the valuation adopted by the original authority was supported by documents, the proprietor's statement and payment of differential duty, so the penalty under Section 114A was maintained while the Section 112(a) penalty was deleted. The redemption fine was also upheld, as the revaluation of the imported goods under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act showed no infirmity in the quantum imposed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361116