<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Post-LEO Bills of Lading edits to alter discharge port in drawback exports upheld as misdeclaration; DRI SCNs valid.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95952</link>
    <description>DRI officers were held competent to issue SCNs in drawback fraud cases, applying the Tribunal&#039;s later precedent upholding DRI jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to SCN validity failed. Deliberate post-LEO alteration of Bills of Lading to change the port of discharge was treated as fraudulent conduct affecting Customs risk assessment and therefore constituted misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the export declarations were held tainted. A company was held to fall within &quot;person&quot; by applying the General Clauses Act where the Customs Act is silent; accordingly, corporate liability under s.114 was maintainable in law. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the customs broker, penalty under s.114(i) was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR action. - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:50:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:50:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Post-LEO Bills of Lading edits to alter discharge port in drawback exports upheld as misdeclaration; DRI SCNs valid.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95952</link>
      <description>DRI officers were held competent to issue SCNs in drawback fraud cases, applying the Tribunal&#039;s later precedent upholding DRI jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to SCN validity failed. Deliberate post-LEO alteration of Bills of Lading to change the port of discharge was treated as fraudulent conduct affecting Customs risk assessment and therefore constituted misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the export declarations were held tainted. A company was held to fall within &quot;person&quot; by applying the General Clauses Act where the Customs Act is silent; accordingly, corporate liability under s.114 was maintainable in law. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the customs broker, penalty under s.114(i) was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR action. - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:50:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>