<?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>Appeal succeeds: no deliberate mis-declaration of freight; no confiscation or penalties under ss.114 and 114AA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93426</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants&#039; failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record&#039;s silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal succeeds: no deliberate mis-declaration of freight; no confiscation or penalties under ss.114 and 114AA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93426</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants&#039; failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record&#039;s silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>