https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42108 Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained because the authorities failed to record a finding that the goods allegedly omitted from declaration were prohibited for export under Item No. 32(l)(b) of Schedule I, Part A of the Exports (Control) Order, 1968. The record did not establish that the petitioner was exporting handwoven woollen carpets or woollen chain stitched rugs, which were the only goods covered by the prohibition relied upon. In the absence of that factual foundation, the statutory basis for penalty was not made out, and the penalty was set aside while the remaining orders were left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:44:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42108 Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained because the authorities failed to record a finding that the goods allegedly omitted from declaration were prohibited for export under Item No. 32(l)(b) of Schedule I, Part A of the Exports (Control) Order, 1968. The record did not establish that the petitioner was exporting handwoven woollen carpets or woollen chain stitched rugs, which were the only goods covered by the prohibition relied upon. In the absence of that factual foundation, the statutory basis for penalty was not made out, and the penalty was set aside while the remaining orders were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42108