https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794223 Exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus was held not to be defeated merely because the Project Implementing Authority certificate was produced belatedly or was not countersigned at the relevant stage. The tribunal treated the countersignature requirement as procedural, noting that the certificate's contents were undisputed, the line ministry was not clearly nominated at the material time, and no diversion of the imported goods was shown. On that basis, denial of exemption, confiscation and penalty on the importer were set aside. Penalty on the bank under Section 112A of the Customs Act was also set aside because the lapse was only procedural and no culpable conduct was established. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794223 Exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus was held not to be defeated merely because the Project Implementing Authority certificate was produced belatedly or was not countersigned at the relevant stage. The tribunal treated the countersignature requirement as procedural, noting that the certificate's contents were undisputed, the line ministry was not clearly nominated at the material time, and no diversion of the imported goods was shown. On that basis, denial of exemption, confiscation and penalty on the importer were set aside. Penalty on the bank under Section 112A of the Customs Act was also set aside because the lapse was only procedural and no culpable conduct was established. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794223