https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774425 CESTAT New Delhi upheld penalty on an individual who created fictitious firms using fraudulently obtained IEC codes to import electronic goods, evading anti-dumping duties. The appellant admitted obtaining IEC codes and opening bank accounts during DRI investigation. When required to produce the alleged firm owner, that person denied knowledge and stated signatures were forged. The court held imported goods violated FTDR Act provisions, making them prohibited goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under Section 112 was properly imposed despite goods being unavailable for actual confiscation. The ex-parte proceedings argument was rejected as adequate hearing opportunities were provided. Appeal dismissed with penalty upheld. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774425 CESTAT New Delhi upheld penalty on an individual who created fictitious firms using fraudulently obtained IEC codes to import electronic goods, evading anti-dumping duties. The appellant admitted obtaining IEC codes and opening bank accounts during DRI investigation. When required to produce the alleged firm owner, that person denied knowledge and stated signatures were forged. The court held imported goods violated FTDR Act provisions, making them prohibited goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. Penalty under Section 112 was properly imposed despite goods being unavailable for actual confiscation. The ex-parte proceedings argument was rejected as adequate hearing opportunities were provided. Appeal dismissed with penalty upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774425