https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784649 The dominant issue was whether penalties under s.112 could be sustained for import of restricted rough marble allegedly in excess of, or without, valid SILs under the Foreign Trade Policy, rendering the goods liable to confiscation under s.111. The Tribunal held that the DRI's case rested on presumptions because adjudication orders, records of fines/penalties, and complete Bills of Entry details were unavailable, and no adverse inference could be drawn against the importers when Customs had cleared the goods with "out of charge" in the normal course. In the absence of affirmative evidence of unauthorised importation without licence coverage, penalties and confiscation proposals were unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and all appeals allowed. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 10:47:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784649 The dominant issue was whether penalties under s.112 could be sustained for import of restricted rough marble allegedly in excess of, or without, valid SILs under the Foreign Trade Policy, rendering the goods liable to confiscation under s.111. The Tribunal held that the DRI's case rested on presumptions because adjudication orders, records of fines/penalties, and complete Bills of Entry details were unavailable, and no adverse inference could be drawn against the importers when Customs had cleared the goods with "out of charge" in the normal course. In the absence of affirmative evidence of unauthorised importation without licence coverage, penalties and confiscation proposals were unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and all appeals allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784649