Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The appellants, who were neither exporters nor Customs House Agents (CHAs), were wrongly penalized u/ss 114 and 114AA for overvaluation of goods for claiming excess duty drawback. The alleged kickback of 40-60% drawback to the appellants lacked documentary evidence. One appellant's contradictory statements could not be relied upon, and the adjudicating authority failed to cross-examine witnesses. As mere employees acting on instructions, the appellants did not benefit from the exporter's attempt to claim excess drawback. The penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
The appellants, who were neither exporters nor Customs House Agents (CHAs), were wrongly penalized u/ss 114 and 114AA for overvaluation of goods for claiming excess duty drawback. The alleged kickback of 40-60% drawback to the appellants lacked documentary evidence. One appellant's contradictory statements could not be relied upon, and the adjudicating authority failed to cross-examine witnesses. As mere employees acting on instructions, the appellants did not benefit from the exporter's attempt to claim excess drawback. The penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
