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 CESTAT held that the appellant could not be implicated solely based on the retracted confessional statement of the co-accused. The telephonic call between them was insufficient to establish appellant's involvement in gold smuggling. Imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was incorrect as there was no evidence of appellant dealing with the seized goods or having prior knowledge of their liability for confiscation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the appellant could not be implicated solely based on the retracted confessional statement of the co-accused. The telephonic call between them was insufficient to establish appellant's involvement in gold smuggling. Imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was incorrect as there was no evidence of appellant dealing with the seized goods or having prior knowledge of their liability for confiscation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
