https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44205 Penalty for short-landing of imported urea under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained because the import manifest declared a higher quantity than was actually discharged, and no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the loaded quantity matched the lower draught survey figure. The court treated the short-landing finding as one of fact, noted that the importer had not sought amendment of the manifest despite the discrepancy, and found no basis to interfere with the concurrent factual conclusions. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed. en-us Tue, 03 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:59:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44205 Penalty for short-landing of imported urea under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained because the import manifest declared a higher quantity than was actually discharged, and no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the loaded quantity matched the lower draught survey figure. The court treated the short-landing finding as one of fact, noted that the importer had not sought amendment of the manifest despite the discrepancy, and found no basis to interfere with the concurrent factual conclusions. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44205