<?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>Penalty of Rs.5,00,000 under s.112 Customs Act upheld for active role in undervaluation and parallel invoicing scheme</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94122</link>
    <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld a Rs.5,00,000 penalty imposed under s.112, Customs Act, arising from importation of 2 GB SD memory cards with undervalued invoices resulting in substantial duty evasion. The Tribunal found the appellant undisputedly aware of and instrumental in the undervaluation scheme: he managed electronic communications (e-mail/WhatsApp), transmitted invoices, and acted on instructions for parallel invoicing while his illiterate relative was identified as the mastermind. Given the appellant&#039;s active participation and pivotal role in facilitating under-invoicing and evasion, the CESTAT concluded there was no basis to interfere with the penalty order, and the appeal was dismissed.</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=864258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty of Rs.5,00,000 under s.112 Customs Act upheld for active role in undervaluation and parallel invoicing scheme</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94122</link>
      <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld a Rs.5,00,000 penalty imposed under s.112, Customs Act, arising from importation of 2 GB SD memory cards with undervalued invoices resulting in substantial duty evasion. The Tribunal found the appellant undisputedly aware of and instrumental in the undervaluation scheme: he managed electronic communications (e-mail/WhatsApp), transmitted invoices, and acted on instructions for parallel invoicing while his illiterate relative was identified as the mastermind. Given the appellant&#039;s active participation and pivotal role in facilitating under-invoicing and evasion, the CESTAT concluded there was no basis to interfere with the penalty order, and the appeal was dismissed.</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=94122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>