Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The appellant imported capital goods under an EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) license issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). The department alleged mis-declaration of the year of manufacture to avail undue benefits under the TUF (Technology Upgradation Fund) Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the Bill of Entry did not mention any year of manufacture, hence there was no mis-declaration. The appellant had not imported under TUF but only under EPCG which did not restrict the year of manufacture. The appellant did not obtain any undue TUF benefits. The exemption notification did not place any restriction on the year of manufacture for EPCG imports. The Commissioner of Customs cannot modify or add conditions to the EPCG license issued by DGFT. Alleged attempts to avail ineligible benefits from other ministries cannot be grounds for customs duty demand, confiscation or penalties under the Customs Act. The imported goods were not liable for confiscation u/ss 111(m) and 111(o) as the conditions were fulfilled. The penalty u/s 114A was also unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order against the appellant.
The appellant imported capital goods under an EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) license issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). The department alleged mis-declaration of the year of manufacture to avail undue benefits under the TUF (Technology Upgradation Fund) Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the Bill of Entry did not mention any year of manufacture, hence there was no mis-declaration. The appellant had not imported under TUF but only under EPCG which did not restrict the year of manufacture. The appellant did not obtain any undue TUF benefits. The exemption notification did not place any restriction on the year of manufacture for EPCG imports. The Commissioner of Customs cannot modify or add conditions to the EPCG license issued by DGFT. Alleged attempts to avail ineligible benefits from other ministries cannot be grounds for customs duty demand, confiscation or penalties under the Customs Act. The imported goods were not liable for confiscation u/ss 111(m) and 111(o) as the conditions were fulfilled. The penalty u/s 114A was also unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
