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 upheld penalties against customs broker for facilitating import of misdeclared worn clothing. Broker failed to exercise due diligence by proceeding without proper importer authorization and verification, relying solely on unauthorized intermediary Nikhil Kumar. Goods were incorrectly classified under CTH 62099090/62044990/62114990 instead of 63090000 and required DGFT authorization as restricted items. Broker submitted false report despite consignment being under alert. Time bar argument rejected as delay occurred due to difficulties in securing importer's presence. Penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act maintained as broker's actions rendered goods liable for confiscation. Appeal dismissed.
CESTAT upheld penalties against customs broker for facilitating import of misdeclared worn clothing. Broker failed to exercise due diligence by proceeding without proper importer authorization and verification, relying solely on unauthorized intermediary Nikhil Kumar. Goods were incorrectly classified under CTH 62099090/62044990/62114990 instead of 63090000 and required DGFT authorization as restricted items. Broker submitted false report despite consignment being under alert. Time bar argument rejected as delay occurred due to difficulties in securing importer's presence. Penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act maintained as broker's actions rendered goods liable for confiscation. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
