TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the customs duty demand, interest and penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable when the seized goods were supported by the importer's adjudication order and sale invoice, and whether the appellants had conscious possession of non-duty-paid imported goods.
Analysis: The seized chocolates and eatables were traced to an earlier adjudication order passed in favour of the importer, and the goods were shown to have been sold through a local invoice after customs clearance. The same godown was used by both proprietorship concerns, and the timing of the adjudication order, invoice and seizure supported the appellants' version that the goods had been lawfully imported and transferred. In such circumstances, the finding that the goods were unauthorisedly held in exclusive and conscious possession of the first appellant was not sustainable. The documentary record, including the adjudication order and invoice, was treated as outweighing the oral statements relied upon by the department. The foundation for re-demanding duty and sustaining penalties under the customs provisions therefore failed.
Conclusion: The customs duty demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable and the appeals succeeded.
TaxTMI 
