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 held that the Department failed to establish the foreign origin of seized betel nuts, which is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation (ARDF) report alone was insufficient evidence, as ARDF is not a government-accredited organization for issuing certificates of origin, following the precedent set in Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner of Customs. Without corroborative evidence beyond mere suspicion, the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(b) were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT held that the Department failed to establish the foreign origin of seized betel nuts, which is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation (ARDF) report alone was insufficient evidence, as ARDF is not a government-accredited organization for issuing certificates of origin, following the precedent set in Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner of Customs. Without corroborative evidence beyond mere suspicion, the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(b) 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 
