<?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 allows exporter: no evidence of overvaluation or false declaration; penalties and drawback recovery under ss.113,114,114AA,125 quashed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94120</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal found no reliable independent evidence that the appellant-exporter overvalued exported goods or filed false declarations so as to attract confiscation under ss. 113(d),(i),(ia) of the Customs Act. Consequently, recovery of drawback, imposition of redemption fine under s.125(1) and penalty under s.114 were held unsustainable. The Tribunal further held s.114AA inapplicable because actual goods, not paper/dummy exports, were shipped, negating the aggravated fraud element required for enhanced penalty. Drawback rejection and consequential penalties were quashed; appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allows exporter: no evidence of overvaluation or false declaration; penalties and drawback recovery under ss.113,114,114AA,125 quashed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94120</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal found no reliable independent evidence that the appellant-exporter overvalued exported goods or filed false declarations so as to attract confiscation under ss. 113(d),(i),(ia) of the Customs Act. Consequently, recovery of drawback, imposition of redemption fine under s.125(1) and penalty under s.114 were held unsustainable. The Tribunal further held s.114AA inapplicable because actual goods, not paper/dummy exports, were shipped, negating the aggravated fraud element required for enhanced penalty. Drawback rejection and consequential penalties were quashed; appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>