https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788178 Imposition of a disciplinary penalty under Regulation 18 was challenged on the ground that the finding of violation of Regulation 10(m) lacked a sustained evidentiary foundation; related primary charges that supported the 10(m) finding were dropped by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal examined the record, communications and the authority's lenient treatment of the importer (including re export permission) and concluded the foundation for sustaining Regulation 10(m) was absent. Consequently, a penalty imposed as a consequential measure for a related regulatory breach could not be maintained, and the penalty was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:20:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788178 Imposition of a disciplinary penalty under Regulation 18 was challenged on the ground that the finding of violation of Regulation 10(m) lacked a sustained evidentiary foundation; related primary charges that supported the 10(m) finding were dropped by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal examined the record, communications and the authority's lenient treatment of the importer (including re export permission) and concluded the foundation for sustaining Regulation 10(m) was absent. Consequently, a penalty imposed as a consequential measure for a related regulatory breach could not be maintained, and the penalty was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788178