Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the Revenue failed to prove the appellant's conscious involvement in the alleged smuggling or abetment with admissible evidence. The Tribunal held that the discarded statement of a co-noticee, which was not subjected to cross-examination as required under Section 138B, could not form the basis of penal action. It further found no corroboration from any seizure record, panchanama, incriminating document, financial link, communication trail, or role in import clearance. In the absence of tangible evidence connecting the appellant with the 5 live consignments or the earlier 26 consignments, both penalties were set aside.
Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the Revenue failed to prove the appellant's conscious involvement in the alleged smuggling or abetment with admissible evidence. The Tribunal held that the discarded statement of a co-noticee, which was not subjected to cross-examination as required under Section 138B, could not form the basis of penal action. It further found no corroboration from any seizure record, panchanama, incriminating document, financial link, communication trail, or role in import clearance. In the absence of tangible evidence connecting the appellant with the 5 live consignments or the earlier 26 consignments, both penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
