https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440323 Misdeclaration of goods attracted confiscability and supported penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; the plea that the lapse arose from employee negligence did not displace the finding of violation. However, the quantum of penalty and redemption fine remained open to review, and the trucks were not offending goods per se. On that basis, the penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld but reduced, and the redemption fine on each truck was also moderated. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:02:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440323 Misdeclaration of goods attracted confiscability and supported penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; the plea that the lapse arose from employee negligence did not displace the finding of violation. However, the quantum of penalty and redemption fine remained open to review, and the trucks were not offending goods per se. On that basis, the penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld but reduced, and the redemption fine on each truck was also moderated. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440323