https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33505 The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand, penalties, and goods confiscation against the appellants for breaching export obligations and diverting imported raw material under Customs Notification No. 80/95. The penalty under Section 114A was vacated as there was no collusion or wilful misstatement. The Managing Director's penalty under Section 112 was upheld due to goods' confiscability, but reduced to Rs. 1,00,000. The judgment emphasized the necessity of proving collusion for penalties under Section 114A and individual liability in customs cases involving Managing Directors. It underscored the importance of evidence and fairness in penalty imposition under the Customs Act. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33505 The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand, penalties, and goods confiscation against the appellants for breaching export obligations and diverting imported raw material under Customs Notification No. 80/95. The penalty under Section 114A was vacated as there was no collusion or wilful misstatement. The Managing Director's penalty under Section 112 was upheld due to goods' confiscability, but reduced to Rs. 1,00,000. The judgment emphasized the necessity of proving collusion for penalties under Section 114A and individual liability in customs cases involving Managing Directors. It underscored the importance of evidence and fairness in penalty imposition under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33505