https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783538 Penalties under s.112(b) of the Customs Act for consignments imported in the names of non-existent firms were unsustainable because the appellants neither claimed ownership nor was there evidence linking them to those goods; mere co-stuffing of multiple importers' LCL cargo in the same container did not create liability for another importer's violations, so penalties based on those consignments were set aside. Confiscation of goods imported using a lent IEC was also unsustainable because the adjudicating authority neither confiscated them under s.111(d) nor could s.119 apply, as those goods were not used to conceal other goods; consequently, confiscation of that consignment and associated penalties were quashed and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783538 Penalties under s.112(b) of the Customs Act for consignments imported in the names of non-existent firms were unsustainable because the appellants neither claimed ownership nor was there evidence linking them to those goods; mere co-stuffing of multiple importers' LCL cargo in the same container did not create liability for another importer's violations, so penalties based on those consignments were set aside. Confiscation of goods imported using a lent IEC was also unsustainable because the adjudicating authority neither confiscated them under s.111(d) nor could s.119 apply, as those goods were not used to conceal other goods; consequently, confiscation of that consignment and associated penalties were quashed and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783538