<?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>2026 (9) TMI 209 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798183</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act was not imposable on an authorised courier where prohibited Red Sander Logs were concealed in an export consignment declared as piano parts. The courier had obtained and processed the consignor&#039;s identity and accompanying documents, submitted the shipment for Customs examination, and met the due-diligence requirement under Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports Regulations, 2010. As Regulation 6 barred opening export packages in the Customs area without the proper officer&#039;s permission, failure to physically inspect the contents could not establish liability. In the absence of evidence of knowledge or abetment, the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 08:20:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 209 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798183</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act was not imposable on an authorised courier where prohibited Red Sander Logs were concealed in an export consignment declared as piano parts. The courier had obtained and processed the consignor&#039;s identity and accompanying documents, submitted the shipment for Customs examination, and met the due-diligence requirement under Regulation 12 of the Courier Imports and Exports Regulations, 2010. As Regulation 6 barred opening export packages in the Customs area without the proper officer&#039;s permission, failure to physically inspect the contents could not establish liability. In the absence of evidence of knowledge or abetment, the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>