https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783032 The Tribunal held that the appellant knowingly submitted forged documents to claim ownership of 12 smuggled gold bars, thereby attracting penalty under s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention that no penalty should be imposed was rejected. However, noting absence of reasons for the quantum, the Tribunal found the penalty of Rs. 1 crore excessive and reduced it to Rs. 10 lakhs under s.114AA. On examining s.117, the Tribunal held there was no contravention of a provision for which no express penalty is elsewhere provided, and therefore set aside the penalty under s.117. The appeal was partly allowed with corresponding modification of the impugned order. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783032 The Tribunal held that the appellant knowingly submitted forged documents to claim ownership of 12 smuggled gold bars, thereby attracting penalty under s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention that no penalty should be imposed was rejected. However, noting absence of reasons for the quantum, the Tribunal found the penalty of Rs. 1 crore excessive and reduced it to Rs. 10 lakhs under s.114AA. On examining s.117, the Tribunal held there was no contravention of a provision for which no express penalty is elsewhere provided, and therefore set aside the penalty under s.117. The appeal was partly allowed with corresponding modification of the impugned order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783032