https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751199 CESTAT New Delhi dismissed appeals by two parties regarding differential duty recovery under Section 28(1) of Customs Act for undeclared/misdeclared imports. First appellant claimed he only lent his IEC to the second party and had no involvement in imports, but CESTAT found no evidence supporting this claim given his firm's bank account, lawyer representations, and CHA filings. Second appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution after 36 adjournments over five years. CESTAT upheld penalties under Section 112(a) as the second party had introduced himself as sales in-charge with authorization and provided detailed business information, contradicting claims of being merely a freight forwarder. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:43:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751199 CESTAT New Delhi dismissed appeals by two parties regarding differential duty recovery under Section 28(1) of Customs Act for undeclared/misdeclared imports. First appellant claimed he only lent his IEC to the second party and had no involvement in imports, but CESTAT found no evidence supporting this claim given his firm's bank account, lawyer representations, and CHA filings. Second appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution after 36 adjournments over five years. CESTAT upheld penalties under Section 112(a) as the second party had introduced himself as sales in-charge with authorization and provided detailed business information, contradicting claims of being merely a freight forwarder. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751199