https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755408 The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, a company, by quashing the penalty orders imposed by the first and second respondents under Section 11(2) of the FTDR Act, 1992. The Court concluded that the penalty lacked authority as there was no actual contravention involving attempts to make exports against the Act, Rules, or policy. Consequently, the penalty orders dated March 31, 2008, and September 7, 2010, were set aside, allowing the petitioner's challenge against the imposition of penalties for failing to meet export obligations under the Letter of Permission/Letter of Undertaking. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755408 The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, a company, by quashing the penalty orders imposed by the first and second respondents under Section 11(2) of the FTDR Act, 1992. The Court concluded that the penalty lacked authority as there was no actual contravention involving attempts to make exports against the Act, Rules, or policy. Consequently, the penalty orders dated March 31, 2008, and September 7, 2010, were set aside, allowing the petitioner's challenge against the imposition of penalties for failing to meet export obligations under the Letter of Permission/Letter of Undertaking. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755408