https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752519 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Despite the appellant's claim of an unintentional RSP declaration error, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing statutory provisions against mis-declaration. The appellant's payment of the differential CVD and penalties was acknowledged, but the appeal was rejected, reinforcing the liability for confiscation and penalties due to value discrepancies in imported goods. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision to support its ruling, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements. en-us Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2024 08:36:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752519 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Despite the appellant's claim of an unintentional RSP declaration error, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing statutory provisions against mis-declaration. The appellant's payment of the differential CVD and penalties was acknowledged, but the appeal was rejected, reinforcing the liability for confiscation and penalties due to value discrepancies in imported goods. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision to support its ruling, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752519