https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390629 The Tribunal upheld the decision, ruling that the imported goods did not qualify for benefits under notification No.4/2006 due to their classification as concentrate post-amendment. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the Director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, as evidence indicated his active involvement in mis-declaration and evasion of customs duty. The Tribunal found no justification to overturn the decision, emphasizing the Director's role in the wrongful acts and the statutory interpretation issues involved. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jan 2020 07:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390629 The Tribunal upheld the decision, ruling that the imported goods did not qualify for benefits under notification No.4/2006 due to their classification as concentrate post-amendment. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the Director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, as evidence indicated his active involvement in mis-declaration and evasion of customs duty. The Tribunal found no justification to overturn the decision, emphasizing the Director's role in the wrongful acts and the statutory interpretation issues involved. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390629