https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783787 The dominant issue was whether the exported goods were prohibited "Garnet" covered by the DGFT notification and correctly classifiable under CTH 25132030, notwithstanding the exporter's claim of inland origin and declaration under CTH 25132090. The Tribunal held that the notification's object, based on AERB recommendations, was to restrict export of garnet irrespective of geographical origin because REEs and associated radioactive minerals may occur inland as well; statutory interpretation must give effect to this legislative intent. Since the tariff also does not distinguish beach and inland garnet, declaration under CTH 25132090 was treated as mis-declaration, warranting confiscation under s.113(d) and s.113(i) and penalties under s.114(i) and s.114AA; confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were upheld and the appeal dismissed. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783787 The dominant issue was whether the exported goods were prohibited "Garnet" covered by the DGFT notification and correctly classifiable under CTH 25132030, notwithstanding the exporter's claim of inland origin and declaration under CTH 25132090. The Tribunal held that the notification's object, based on AERB recommendations, was to restrict export of garnet irrespective of geographical origin because REEs and associated radioactive minerals may occur inland as well; statutory interpretation must give effect to this legislative intent. Since the tariff also does not distinguish beach and inland garnet, declaration under CTH 25132090 was treated as mis-declaration, warranting confiscation under s.113(d) and s.113(i) and penalties under s.114(i) and s.114AA; confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were upheld and the appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783787