<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalty under Section 117 Customs Act set aside due to no mis-declaration in shipping bills and FT Policy breach only</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91099</link>
    <description>The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged mis-declaration on airway bills relating to 43 consignments. The Tribunal held that the violation pertained solely to the Foreign Trade Policy, which falls outside the scope of Section 117, applicable only to contraventions of the Customs Act. The Commissioner erred by invoking an incorrect sub-section of Section 50 regarding document authority rather than accuracy of export information. Furthermore, no mis-declaration was found in the shipping bills, which contained correct descriptions. The penalty was unsustainable as the appellant was not properly notified of the specific contravention. Consequently, since no Customs Act provision was breached, the appellant-exporter could not be penalized under Section 117, and the impugned order was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty under Section 117 Customs Act set aside due to no mis-declaration in shipping bills and FT Policy breach only</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91099</link>
      <description>The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged mis-declaration on airway bills relating to 43 consignments. The Tribunal held that the violation pertained solely to the Foreign Trade Policy, which falls outside the scope of Section 117, applicable only to contraventions of the Customs Act. The Commissioner erred by invoking an incorrect sub-section of Section 50 regarding document authority rather than accuracy of export information. Furthermore, no mis-declaration was found in the shipping bills, which contained correct descriptions. The penalty was unsustainable as the appellant was not properly notified of the specific contravention. Consequently, since no Customs Act provision was breached, the appellant-exporter could not be penalized under Section 117, and the impugned order was quashed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>