https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47685 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was treated as sustainable for the 1990-91 import because that provision was in force at the relevant time and the operative basis was breach of exemption conditions; the reference to Section 114A did not invalidate the action. Penalty proceedings were also held maintainable even though the goods were no longer available and the bond was said to have been cancelled, since confiscation-related liability does not depend on physical availability of the goods and no proof of cancellation was shown. Proceedings under Section 129D were found independent of the appellate remedy under Section 129A, not barred by limitation or res judicata, and capable of correcting omission to levy penalty. en-us Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:43:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47685 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was treated as sustainable for the 1990-91 import because that provision was in force at the relevant time and the operative basis was breach of exemption conditions; the reference to Section 114A did not invalidate the action. Penalty proceedings were also held maintainable even though the goods were no longer available and the bond was said to have been cancelled, since confiscation-related liability does not depend on physical availability of the goods and no proof of cancellation was shown. Proceedings under Section 129D were found independent of the appellate remedy under Section 129A, not barred by limitation or res judicata, and capable of correcting omission to levy penalty. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47685