<?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>Evidentiary linkage required for export penalty claims; CESTAT set aside freight forwarder penalties based on presumptions alone.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99571</link>
    <description>CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Evidentiary linkage required for export penalty claims; CESTAT set aside freight forwarder penalties based on presumptions alone.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99571</link>
      <description>CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>