<?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>Misdeclaration and diversion of duty-free gold upheld, with penalties confined to participants shown to have consciously facilitated fraud.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99901</link>
    <description>Misdeclaration of export goods was established where scientific examination showed the recalled consignment to be low-gold bangles rather than the declared 22 carat jewellery, so confiscation under Sections 113(i) and 113(ja) was sustained. Diversion of duty-free gold under Notification No. 57/2000-Cus. was also proved because the quantity procured did not match the gold found, no manufacturing records explained the shortfall, and strict compliance with the exemption conditions was not shown; confiscation under Section 111(o) was therefore justified. Penalties were upheld only against persons whose conduct showed conscious facilitation or knowing use of false documents, while HDFC Bank, the Superintendent, and job workers were exonerated for lack of mens rea. Redemption fine was not imposed on unavailable goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Misdeclaration and diversion of duty-free gold upheld, with penalties confined to participants shown to have consciously facilitated fraud.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99901</link>
      <description>Misdeclaration of export goods was established where scientific examination showed the recalled consignment to be low-gold bangles rather than the declared 22 carat jewellery, so confiscation under Sections 113(i) and 113(ja) was sustained. Diversion of duty-free gold under Notification No. 57/2000-Cus. was also proved because the quantity procured did not match the gold found, no manufacturing records explained the shortfall, and strict compliance with the exemption conditions was not shown; confiscation under Section 111(o) was therefore justified. Penalties were upheld only against persons whose conduct showed conscious facilitation or knowing use of false documents, while HDFC Bank, the Superintendent, and job workers were exonerated for lack of mens rea. Redemption fine was not imposed on unavailable goods.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>