https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51363 Where the Bills of Entry named the Naval authorities as importer, the Tribunal held that the appellants could not be retrospectively treated as importers merely because they arranged the supply or coordinated the import. In the absence of any amendment to the import declaration, importer status could not be shifted to them, so the duty demand, confiscation-linked redemption consequences and related liability on that footing were unsustainable. Penalty under section 112(a) also failed because that provision requires a proper factual basis of concern in improper importation, which was absent where the appellants were not shown as importers and had not made the declarations. The consequential orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:11:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51363 Where the Bills of Entry named the Naval authorities as importer, the Tribunal held that the appellants could not be retrospectively treated as importers merely because they arranged the supply or coordinated the import. In the absence of any amendment to the import declaration, importer status could not be shifted to them, so the duty demand, confiscation-linked redemption consequences and related liability on that footing were unsustainable. Penalty under section 112(a) also failed because that provision requires a proper factual basis of concern in improper importation, which was absent where the appellants were not shown as importers and had not made the declarations. The consequential orders were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51363