{"id":258911,"date":"2021-12-23T11:00:16","date_gmt":"2021-12-23T05:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=258911"},"modified":"2022-02-04T13:44:26","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T08:14:26","slug":"cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/","title":{"rendered":"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper"},"content":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT):<\/strong> Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs contesting the penalty imposed on appellants under section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962.<\/p>\n

The appellant argued that in a live consignment, the duty cannot be demanded under Section 28 (4) and the Bill of Entry can be reassessed only under Section 17 (4).On this basis, the appellant further argued that when duty demand under Section 28 (4) does not survive, penalty imposed under Section 114A has to be set aside. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd,<\/em> 1996 (86) ELT 460 (SC) to argue that show cause notice under provisions of Section 28 could be issued only subsequent to the clearance of the goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and pleaded to set aside the penalty imposed.<\/p>\n

The respondent contended that the demand raised under section 28 (4) was proper and the contention that the reassessment had to be done under Section 17 (5) was not applicable to the facts of the case as there was wilful suppression of facts and mis declaration of the goods.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had later at the time of hearing of the appeal opted to abandon the goods and that in any way did not absolve the allegations of mis declarations confirmed and upheld by the impugned order. Further, the Tribunal observed that the appellant imported prohibited goods which were absolutely confiscated and the import of such undeclared goods established suppression on the part of the appellant with intention to evade customs duty. The Tribunal noted that merely because the appellant had abandoned the goods, the infractions committed by the appellant or the duty confirmed cannot be done away with.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal further held that the reliance placed by the Counsel in the case of Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd.,<\/em> 1996 (86) ELT 460 (SC) was also incorrect because the Supreme Court in the said judgement had set aside the order of the High court and had directed that proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices under Sections 28 and 124 shall continue.[Trueman Global Solution (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, 2021 SCC OnLine CESTAT 2667<\/b><\/a>, order dated 10-12-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":201689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258911","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies"],"yoast_head":"\nCESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-23T05:30:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-02-04T08:14:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/\",\"name\":\"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-23T05:30:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-04T08:14:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper","og_description":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-12-23T05:30:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-02-04T08:14:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/","name":"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","datePublished":"2021-12-23T05:30:16+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-04T08:14:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/23\/cestat-suppression-of-facts-in-the-nature-of-undeclared-goods-and-misdeclared-good-resulting-in-confiscation-made-under-s-28-4-held-to-be-valid-and-proper\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CESTAT | Suppression of facts in the nature of \u2018undeclared goods\u2019 and \u2018misdeclared good\u2019 resulting in confiscation made under S. 28 (4), held to be valid and proper"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":243734,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/12\/cestat-penalty-imposed-under-s-112-read-with-s-114aa-of-the-customs-act-1962-set-aside-tribunal-allows-appeal-stating-absence-of-mens-rea\/","url_meta":{"origin":258911,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT | Penalty imposed under S. 112 read with S. 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside; Tribunal allows appeal stating absence of mens rea","author":"Editor","date":"February 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order wherein the penalty of Rs 50,000 had been imposed under Section 112 read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was a customs broker and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":377457,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/06\/reconstructed-dvd-inadmissible-as-evidence-under-customs-act-cestat\/","url_meta":{"origin":258911,"position":1},"title":"Unverified DVD inadmissible as evidence under Customs Act, 1962; can\u2019t be used to implicate individual: CESTAT","author":"Bharti","date":"March 6, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Electronic record, in the form of the DVD could not be treated as admissible evidence, in the absence of any verification as to its genuineness, veracity or reliability from the original electronic device by\/from which these are created, for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114-AA, Customs Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Reconstructed DVD inadmissible as evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Reconstructed-DVD-inadmissible-as-evidence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324184,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/12\/cestat-upholds-order-directing-to-pay-redemption-fine-and-penalty-on-re-export-of-prohibited-goods-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":258911,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Releasing prohibited goods without fine is not a valid option\u2019; CESTAT upholds order directing to pay redemption fine and penalty on re-export of prohibited goods","author":"Arushi","date":"June 12, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Tribunal stated that no court has held that prohibited goods were to be released for re-export without payment of redemption fine. Such a stance would encourage importers smuggling\/making improper import of goods, to take a chance with the law and if caught, request for re-export without a fine.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CESTAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/CESTAT.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235860,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/16\/cestat-%e2%94%82-employee-not-liable-for-the-actions-of-the-senior-while-following-instructions-tribunal-allows-appeal-and-sets-aside-penalty-under-s-112-a-of-customs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":258911,"position":3},"title":"CESTAT | Employee not liable for the actions of the senior while following instructions; Tribunal allows appeal and sets aside penalty under S. 112 (a) of Customs Act","author":"Editor","date":"September 16, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical Member), allowed an appeal filed by the appellant who was an employee, \"H\u201f Cardholder working with Customs House Agent -- Commercial Clearing Agencies Pvt. Limited, at the relevant time. In\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318394,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/26\/tribunal-has-discretion-to-dispense-obligation-to-deposit-duty-interest-or-penalty-in-cases-of-undue-hardships-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":258911,"position":4},"title":"[Section 129-E, Customs Act] | Tribunal has discretion to dispense obligation to deposit duty\/interest or penalty in cases of undue hardships: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"March 26, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 129-E of Customs Act, 1962 makes it obligatory to deposit the duty\/penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main Section or with any order that might be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369684,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/15\/cestat-grants-relief-in-e-rickshaw-import-classification-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":258911,"position":5},"title":"Read Why CESTAT set aside penalties against E-rickshaw manufacturer alleged to have evaded duty in import classification dispute","author":"Ekta","date":"December 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Tribunal stated that simply failing to disclose facts is not enough to extend the limitation period. Suppression must be deliberate and intended to evade duty and since no such intent is shown in the present case, the extended period cannot apply.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"e-rickshaw import classification dispute","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/e-rickshaw-import-classification-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/e-rickshaw-import-classification-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/e-rickshaw-import-classification-dispute.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/e-rickshaw-import-classification-dispute.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258911","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258911"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258911\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}