https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785941 Breach of an import undertaking under Condition No.104 of the exemption notification was found where the imported helicopter was used largely for private, nonremunerated flights (80%), so recovery via the undertaking and confiscation were upheld as operative consequences for noncompliance. The record showed the appellant intended exemption under Serial No.347B but mistakenly referenced 347A; that clerical error did not negate liability. Penalties imposed on two company officers were overturned because the record did not establish requisite knowledge or mens rea linking their conduct to the exemption breach, and departmental enhancement of penalties was therefore dismissed. en-us Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Feb 2026 08:39:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785941 Breach of an import undertaking under Condition No.104 of the exemption notification was found where the imported helicopter was used largely for private, nonremunerated flights (80%), so recovery via the undertaking and confiscation were upheld as operative consequences for noncompliance. The record showed the appellant intended exemption under Serial No.347B but mistakenly referenced 347A; that clerical error did not negate liability. Penalties imposed on two company officers were overturned because the record did not establish requisite knowledge or mens rea linking their conduct to the exemption breach, and departmental enhancement of penalties was therefore dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785941