https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784465 Whether penalties under ss. 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act could be sustained for alleged abetment in misdeclaration/overvaluation to evade anti-dumping duty was determined by applying the Tribunal's earlier ruling on identical facts involving high sea sales. Since imports were effected through high sea sale agreements and payments were through banking channels, the declared transaction value could not be rejected merely on the department's premise of a lower supplier price. Further, reliance primarily on statements recorded under s. 108, while denying requested cross-examination, could not support a finding of intentional inflation or abetment. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784465 Whether penalties under ss. 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act could be sustained for alleged abetment in misdeclaration/overvaluation to evade anti-dumping duty was determined by applying the Tribunal's earlier ruling on identical facts involving high sea sales. Since imports were effected through high sea sale agreements and payments were through banking channels, the declared transaction value could not be rejected merely on the department's premise of a lower supplier price. Further, reliance primarily on statements recorded under s. 108, while denying requested cross-examination, could not support a finding of intentional inflation or abetment. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784465