https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777222 CESTAT MUMBAI - AT held the seized shark fins were not liable for confiscation for attempted export due to absence of documentary evidence of export intent; the authority's re-determination of value based on a retracted, uncorroborated statement was rejected as unreliable and contrary to the Customs Valuation Rules and Section 14. Because confiscation could not be sustained, penalty under Section 114(i) could not be imposed on the proprietor. The impugned order confiscating the goods, enhancing their value, and imposing penalty was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777222 CESTAT MUMBAI - AT held the seized shark fins were not liable for confiscation for attempted export due to absence of documentary evidence of export intent; the authority's re-determination of value based on a retracted, uncorroborated statement was rejected as unreliable and contrary to the Customs Valuation Rules and Section 14. Because confiscation could not be sustained, penalty under Section 114(i) could not be imposed on the proprietor. The impugned order confiscating the goods, enhancing their value, and imposing penalty was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777222