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 allowed the refund claim, finding that the proper officer failed to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 when reassessing duty on shipping bills. The tribunal determined that the assessment demanding duty based on Wet Metric Tonne instead of Dry Metric Tonne was procedurally defective, as no substantive order was passed within the mandated 15-day period. Consequently, the reasons for denying the refund were deemed unsustainable, effectively supporting the appellant's claim for duty refund based on procedural non-compliance.
CESTAT allowed the refund claim, finding that the proper officer failed to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 when reassessing duty on shipping bills. The tribunal determined that the assessment demanding duty based on Wet Metric Tonne instead of Dry Metric Tonne was procedurally defective, as no substantive order was passed within the mandated 15-day period. Consequently, the reasons for denying the refund were deemed unsustainable, effectively supporting the appellant's claim for duty refund based on procedural non-compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.