https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781408 Proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act were not invalidated by objections based on proper officer authority under Section 28, because the duty-recovery ruling in Canon India was confined to that context and did not control these proceedings. A customs broker who filed unauthorized shipping bills in the name of a non-participating exporter at another person's behest was held responsible for misdeclaration and the resulting liability to confiscation. Penalty under the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018 was treated as distinct from penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, so the regulatory penalty did not bar additional statutory penalty. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781408 Proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act were not invalidated by objections based on proper officer authority under Section 28, because the duty-recovery ruling in Canon India was confined to that context and did not control these proceedings. A customs broker who filed unauthorized shipping bills in the name of a non-participating exporter at another person's behest was held responsible for misdeclaration and the resulting liability to confiscation. Penalty under the Customs Broker's Licensing Regulations, 2018 was treated as distinct from penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, so the regulatory penalty did not bar additional statutory penalty. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781408