Section 114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material

Judgments on Section 114AA

• M/S Ascent Circuits Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Customs — CESTAT, 4 Sep 2026. Goods that are merely 'restricted' (not prohibited) under the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be absolutely confiscated absent specific recorded reasons, since Section 125 confers a discretion to allow redemption on fine…
• Imperial Fibres Pvt Ltd vs Mundra — CESTAT, 31 Aug 2026. The extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked, and a beneficial exemption cannot be denied, where the department's delayed, partial and unauthenticated foreign verification of Certificates…
• Balaji Niryat Pvt Ltd vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 22 Jul 2026. Preferential tariff treatment under a trade agreement cannot be denied merely because the overseas supplier failed to cooperate in an origin verification, where the Certificates of Origin covering the importer's own…
• Haji S International vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2026. Where the repealing 2017 Drawback Rules contain a specific saving provision in rule 20(2), section 159A of the Customs Act does not apply, and recovery of drawback under rule 16 or 16A of the repealed 1995 Rules cannot…
• Hitesh Miglani vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 23 Mar 2026. Where seized goods are not 'prohibited goods' under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, grant of the redemption option under Section 125(1) is obligatory and not discretionary, and a later notification restricting imports…
• Mahesh Agarwal Partner vs Cc Sea Ch - Ii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where higher-value parallel documents are recovered from the importer's own possession and corroborated by voluntary Section 108 admissions and extra-commercial payments, declared transaction value may be rejected, the…
• Mukesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 17 Feb 2026. Penalties under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act can be imposed only where mens rea or active involvement is established, and retracted statements recorded u/s 108 cannot sustain duty demands unless tested…
• M/S Xiaomi Technology India Private… vs Commissioner Of Customs Air… — CESTAT, 14 Nov 2025. Royalty and licence fee paid by an importer under agreements with IPR holders, not disclosed to the customs authorities, is includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007,…
• Van Oord India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 13 Nov 2025. Physical non-availability of goods is no bar to confiscation under Section 111 or redemption fine under Section 125, but the fine must be commensurate with the duty benefit actually accrued, and a Section 114AA penalty…
• Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs (Export)-New… — CESTAT, 16 Oct 2025. The FOB/transaction value of exported goods cannot be modified by any customs officer; re-determination under the Valuation Rules only fixes the assessable value, and drawback payable as a percentage of FOB must be…
• P C Jain vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 15 May 2025. A charge of undervaluation cannot be sustained on diary entries and statements alone without independent evidence such as NIDB data, market enquiry or contemporaneous higher values, and an adjudication in which…
• Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 8 Apr 2025. Where Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules prescribes no period of limitation, the general three-year limitation cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment…
• Commissioner Of Customs Import 1 Zone 1 vs M/S Essar Bulk Terminal Salaya Limited — CESTAT, 3 Apr 2025. Alleged overvaluation without duty consequence cannot sustain confiscation under section 111(m) or penalties under sections 112/114AA, and the price of goods for export to a country other than India is expressly barred…
• Ujjawal Chattopadhyay vs New Delhi-Icd Tkd — CESTAT, 20 Mar 2025. Penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA cannot be sustained on a retracted, uncorroborated admission alone; the department must independently prove the broker's knowledge of the falsity, and co-noticee statements…
• Hemant Bohra vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva -… — CESTAT, 26 Aug 2024. Drawback provisions being an incentive-oriented scheme for augmenting exports, procedural requirements such as Rule 13(1)(a) documentation and Section 149 shipping bill amendment must receive a liberal construction and…
• Shiv Probuild Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi Acc… — CESTAT, 6 Aug 2024. Violations of bonded warehouse licence conditions that are merely typographical, curable, or not breaches of any legal provision are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of the licence under section 58B, and…
• T N Malhotra vs Principal Commissioner, Customs-New… — CESTAT, 4 Jun 2024. The transaction value of past imports can be enhanced only on the basis of invoices or other documents pertaining to those very imports; loading the values of live consignments onto past bills of entry in the absence of…
• Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 22 Apr 2024. Storage or unloading of imported goods, even in non-bonded tanks or through pipelines into a bonded warehouse, attracts no confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where it is done with the prior permission of the…
• M/S Global Technologies And Research vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs New… — Supreme Court of India, 15 Mar 2024. Where the Customs Act prescribes no limitation for the Committee of Commissioners to direct an appeal under Section 129A(2), its decision must still be taken within a reasonable time, and where earlier imports of…
• Shm Shipcare P Ltd vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 16 Feb 2024. Manufacture in a customs bonded warehouse under Sections 58 and 65 is a duty-deferment scheme: import duty on raw materials consumed in the final product is payable only on clearance of the final product under Section…

All 70 judgments