https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434522 Export of helicopters without an importer-exporter code was treated as a technical breach where the exporter had sought official permission and DGFT clarification exempted IDERA holders re-exporting aircraft under Rule 32A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 from IEC requirements. On those facts, the breach did not justify enhancement of redemption fine or penalty. The phrase "liable to confiscation" under the Customs Act was stated to confer discretion, not a mandate, so the authority must first assess whether confiscation is warranted on the facts and then ? No-then consider redemption fine and penalty within statutory limits. The fine and penalty imposed were within discretion and did not call for interference. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 26 Feb 2023 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434522 Export of helicopters without an importer-exporter code was treated as a technical breach where the exporter had sought official permission and DGFT clarification exempted IDERA holders re-exporting aircraft under Rule 32A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 from IEC requirements. On those facts, the breach did not justify enhancement of redemption fine or penalty. The phrase "liable to confiscation" under the Customs Act was stated to confer discretion, not a mandate, so the authority must first assess whether confiscation is warranted on the facts and then ? No-then consider redemption fine and penalty within statutory limits. The fine and penalty imposed were within discretion and did not call for interference. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434522