Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
The case involved confiscation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine u/s 125, and penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods in question were men's woven quilted/padded polyester polyfill of unpopular brands. Section 28(4) was found not applicable for recovery of differential duty. The assessment process was not completed before the goods were cleared for home consumption. The respondent importer did not challenge the duty assessment and paid as per the assessment. The Customs (Preventive) Officers took over the assessment process, and it was not a case of fraud or mis-declaration. Sections 28(4), 111(m), and 114A were deemed inapplicable. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the confiscation and penalty. The CESTAT upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The case involved confiscation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine u/s 125, and penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods in question were men's woven quilted/padded polyester polyfill of unpopular brands. Section 28(4) was found not applicable for recovery of differential duty. The assessment process was not completed before the goods were cleared for home consumption. The respondent importer did not challenge the duty assessment and paid as per the assessment. The Customs (Preventive) Officers took over the assessment process, and it was not a case of fraud or mis-declaration. Sections 28(4), 111(m), and 114A were deemed inapplicable. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the confiscation and penalty. The CESTAT upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
