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 analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
CESTAT analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.