<?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 partly allowed: upholds confiscation under s.111(d)&amp;(m), reduces s.125 redemption fine to Rs.26.5L, sets aside s.114A penalty</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93728</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the original rejection of the declared transaction value, the re-determination of assessable value and duty, and the order of confiscation under s.111(d) &amp; (m) of the Customs Act, while reducing the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under s.125 to Rs.26,50,000 and setting aside the penalty imposed under s.114A. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s claim of bona fide import under the EPCG scheme not implausible and noted absence of findings of invoice manipulation or wilful suppression; it further held that once duty as assessed was paid without a s.28(8) demand, imposition of s.114A penalty was untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal partly allowed: upholds confiscation under s.111(d)&amp;(m), reduces s.125 redemption fine to Rs.26.5L, sets aside s.114A penalty</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93728</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the original rejection of the declared transaction value, the re-determination of assessable value and duty, and the order of confiscation under s.111(d) &amp; (m) of the Customs Act, while reducing the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under s.125 to Rs.26,50,000 and setting aside the penalty imposed under s.114A. The Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s claim of bona fide import under the EPCG scheme not implausible and noted absence of findings of invoice manipulation or wilful suppression; it further held that once duty as assessed was paid without a s.28(8) demand, imposition of s.114A penalty was untenable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>