https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302439 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a customs case involving mis-declaration of goods. The original authority's order was deemed contradictory as it directed both redemption and re-export of goods, leading to the appellant's loss of ownership. Consequently, the confiscation was set aside, and the redemption fine was deemed unsustainable since the goods were re-exported. The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The judgment emphasized the importance of clarity in orders involving re-export and confiscation to ensure penalties align with ownership rights, aiming for a fair resolution. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2022 20:41:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302439 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a customs case involving mis-declaration of goods. The original authority's order was deemed contradictory as it directed both redemption and re-export of goods, leading to the appellant's loss of ownership. Consequently, the confiscation was set aside, and the redemption fine was deemed unsustainable since the goods were re-exported. The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The judgment emphasized the importance of clarity in orders involving re-export and confiscation to ensure penalties align with ownership rights, aiming for a fair resolution. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302439