https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784645 The dominant issue was whether the seized goods were liable to confiscation under s.111 of the Customs Act and whether penalties under s.112 were sustainable for alleged illegal import supported by fabricated documentation. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under s.108, corroborated by cross-examination, established that the invoices and allied documents produced to claim licit import and local purchase were not issued by the purported supplier and did not pertain to the seized goods; hence the goods were treated as imported without valid duty-paying documents and with misdeclaration/undervaluation. Consequently, confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 on the importer and the individual were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784645 The dominant issue was whether the seized goods were liable to confiscation under s.111 of the Customs Act and whether penalties under s.112 were sustainable for alleged illegal import supported by fabricated documentation. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under s.108, corroborated by cross-examination, established that the invoices and allied documents produced to claim licit import and local purchase were not issued by the purported supplier and did not pertain to the seized goods; hence the goods were treated as imported without valid duty-paying documents and with misdeclaration/undervaluation. Consequently, confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 on the importer and the individual were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784645