https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773862 The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had inadvertently declared an incorrect duty rate but promptly paid differential duty and interest upon detection. The Tribunal held that sections 111(m) and 111(o) did not apply as there was no material misdeclaration regarding country of origin or entitlement to concessional rates under AIFTA. The penalty under section 112 was unwarranted given the absence of mala fide intention and prompt rectification. The punitive measures totaling Rs. 7,50,000 were grossly disproportionate to the differential duty of Rs. 44,258, violating principles of proportionality and natural justice. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:43:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773862 The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had inadvertently declared an incorrect duty rate but promptly paid differential duty and interest upon detection. The Tribunal held that sections 111(m) and 111(o) did not apply as there was no material misdeclaration regarding country of origin or entitlement to concessional rates under AIFTA. The penalty under section 112 was unwarranted given the absence of mala fide intention and prompt rectification. The punitive measures totaling Rs. 7,50,000 were grossly disproportionate to the differential duty of Rs. 44,258, violating principles of proportionality and natural justice. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773862