<?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>SCN for contraband misdeclaration upheld, penalties under Sections 28(4), 112, 114AA sustained, Section 155 protection denied</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94357</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld the validity of the SCN issued under s.28(4) r/w s.124 of the Customs Act, holding that gross misdeclaration of description, quantity and value of contraband goods, supported by overseas customs reports, call data records and handwriting expert opinion, established collusion, wilful misstatement and suppression. The plea of lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination was rejected, as statements under s.108 were voluntary and independent evidence was ample; no prejudice was shown. Departmental officers were found complicit in facilitating fraudulent clearances and were held amenable to penalty as &quot;any person&quot;, with protection under s.155 denied. Penalties under ss.112 and 114AA on importers and officers were sustained, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>SCN for contraband misdeclaration upheld, penalties under Sections 28(4), 112, 114AA sustained, Section 155 protection denied</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94357</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld the validity of the SCN issued under s.28(4) r/w s.124 of the Customs Act, holding that gross misdeclaration of description, quantity and value of contraband goods, supported by overseas customs reports, call data records and handwriting expert opinion, established collusion, wilful misstatement and suppression. The plea of lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination was rejected, as statements under s.108 were voluntary and independent evidence was ample; no prejudice was shown. Departmental officers were found complicit in facilitating fraudulent clearances and were held amenable to penalty as &quot;any person&quot;, with protection under s.155 denied. Penalties under ss.112 and 114AA on importers and officers were sustained, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>