https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432949 After the 2014 amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, a 7.5% pre-deposit became a mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal, and the Tribunal had no discretion to waive it on grounds of hardship; appeals filed without compliance were therefore not maintainable. The territorial jurisdiction objection also failed because the alleged diversion, clandestine removal, and attempted improper export were found to have occurred within India through SEZ units. Customs penalty and confiscation provisions were held applicable to persons who abet improper import or export, including direct participants and beneficiaries of misuse of the clearance mechanism and false documentation. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432949 After the 2014 amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, a 7.5% pre-deposit became a mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal, and the Tribunal had no discretion to waive it on grounds of hardship; appeals filed without compliance were therefore not maintainable. The territorial jurisdiction objection also failed because the alleged diversion, clandestine removal, and attempted improper export were found to have occurred within India through SEZ units. Customs penalty and confiscation provisions were held applicable to persons who abet improper import or export, including direct participants and beneficiaries of misuse of the clearance mechanism and false documentation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432949