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 appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 09.03.2022. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and goods confiscation was reversed. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without conclusive proof of destination or document verification by relevant authorities.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 09.03.2022. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and goods confiscation was reversed. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without conclusive proof of destination or document verification by relevant authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
