<?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>Knowing facilitation of diverted duty-free imports attracts penalty where transport to unauthorised premises shows awareness of breach.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99388</link>
    <description>Knowing facilitation of diversion of duty-free imported goods from premises specified in Advance Authorisation conditions attracted penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the importer admitted diversion and partial duty payment, and that sales tax delivery notes handed to the appellant, including a copy given to the truck driver, showed awareness that the goods were being moved for sale contrary to the authorisation terms. On these facts, the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant&#039;s aiding and abetting of their transport to unauthorised premises justified the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 07:40:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 07:40:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Knowing facilitation of diverted duty-free imports attracts penalty where transport to unauthorised premises shows awareness of breach.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99388</link>
      <description>Knowing facilitation of diversion of duty-free imported goods from premises specified in Advance Authorisation conditions attracted penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the importer admitted diversion and partial duty payment, and that sales tax delivery notes handed to the appellant, including a copy given to the truck driver, showed awareness that the goods were being moved for sale contrary to the authorisation terms. On these facts, the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant&#039;s aiding and abetting of their transport to unauthorised premises justified the penalty.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 07:40:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>