https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755103 Penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act requires proof that the exporter did, omitted to do, or abetted an act rendering goods liable to confiscation under section 113. Where the declared goods were factory-stuffed under customs supervision, sealed at the factory, and found intact at the dock, and the department produced no direct or corroborative evidence of the exporter's knowledge, participation, or control over any substitution after departure from the factory, suspicion could not replace proof. The penalty on the exporter was therefore not sustainable and was set aside. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jul 2024 07:50:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755103 Penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act requires proof that the exporter did, omitted to do, or abetted an act rendering goods liable to confiscation under section 113. Where the declared goods were factory-stuffed under customs supervision, sealed at the factory, and found intact at the dock, and the department produced no direct or corroborative evidence of the exporter's knowledge, participation, or control over any substitution after departure from the factory, suspicion could not replace proof. The penalty on the exporter was therefore not sustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755103