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...
CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of Customs Act 1962 against appellant for alleged gold smuggling. Court found insufficient evidence beyond statements of P and Y to establish appellant's involvement in smuggling activities. While gold recovered from P and Y was confiscated under s.111 and penalties imposed on them, no independent corroborative evidence existed to prove appellant's role in the offense. Mere statements without supporting proof were deemed inadequate to sustain penalties for abetment of smuggling. Tribunal held penalty provisions require concrete evidence of acts rendering goods liable for confiscation, which was lacking against appellant.
CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of Customs Act 1962 against appellant for alleged gold smuggling. Court found insufficient evidence beyond statements of P and Y to establish appellant's involvement in smuggling activities. While gold recovered from P and Y was confiscated under s.111 and penalties imposed on them, no independent corroborative evidence existed to prove appellant's role in the offense. Mere statements without supporting proof were deemed inadequate to sustain penalties for abetment of smuggling. Tribunal held penalty provisions require concrete evidence of acts rendering goods liable for confiscation, which was lacking against appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
