https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790822 Duty demand on imported marble blocks failed because the alleged diversion was not proved by admissible evidence: goods found in stock at the 100% EOU were shown to remain within the unit, while the remaining inference of diversion rested on internet material and third-party statements that could not be relied on without section 138B compliance. Penalty under section 114A was also unsustainable because the case involved, at most, an alleged post-import breach of exemption conditions, not collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression at the time of import. Penalties under section 114AA likewise failed because no knowing or intentional false declaration or document was established. The impugned order was set aside in full. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 10:14:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790822 Duty demand on imported marble blocks failed because the alleged diversion was not proved by admissible evidence: goods found in stock at the 100% EOU were shown to remain within the unit, while the remaining inference of diversion rested on internet material and third-party statements that could not be relied on without section 138B compliance. Penalty under section 114A was also unsustainable because the case involved, at most, an alleged post-import breach of exemption conditions, not collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression at the time of import. Penalties under section 114AA likewise failed because no knowing or intentional false declaration or document was established. The impugned order was set aside in full. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790822