https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442021 The appeal was allowed as the court found no intentional mis-declaration by the appellant in declaring the quantity of goods for customs clearance. The court noted that the discrepancy in weight was due to invoicing based on theoretical weight, not an attempt to evade duty. The appellant paid the differential duty and invoice value, indicating good faith. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty imposed were deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Aug 2023 09:06:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442021 The appeal was allowed as the court found no intentional mis-declaration by the appellant in declaring the quantity of goods for customs clearance. The court noted that the discrepancy in weight was due to invoicing based on theoretical weight, not an attempt to evade duty. The appellant paid the differential duty and invoice value, indicating good faith. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty imposed were deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442021