https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783867 Whether the seized mobile phones were liable to confiscation and penalties under ss. 112(a)(i), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act turned on proof of lawful import, IMEI compliance, and statutory marking requirements. The authority treated 3,998 phones as smuggled because the invoice produced by the claimant did not match the invoice filed with the Bill of Entry for the asserted airport import, evidencing absence of legal import; confiscation of 2,886 phones with an option of redemption fine was upheld. Import of phones without valid IMEI numbers being impermissible, absolute confiscation of 1,012 phones was upheld. Non-fixation of MRP/RSP stickers, mandated under FTP and s. 4A of the Central Excise Act, further justified confiscation; consequential penalties were sustained and the appeals were dismissed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 12:00:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783867 Whether the seized mobile phones were liable to confiscation and penalties under ss. 112(a)(i), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act turned on proof of lawful import, IMEI compliance, and statutory marking requirements. The authority treated 3,998 phones as smuggled because the invoice produced by the claimant did not match the invoice filed with the Bill of Entry for the asserted airport import, evidencing absence of legal import; confiscation of 2,886 phones with an option of redemption fine was upheld. Import of phones without valid IMEI numbers being impermissible, absolute confiscation of 1,012 phones was upheld. Non-fixation of MRP/RSP stickers, mandated under FTP and s. 4A of the Central Excise Act, further justified confiscation; consequential penalties were sustained and the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783867