Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalties on the appellant CHA under Sections 112, 114, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, rejecting the appellant's claim of lack of mens rea regarding the mis-declared and overvalued consignment. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice as additional submissions were considered in the impugned order. The appellant failed to produce the importer or proprietor despite summons and submitted misleading information about delivery of summons. The appellant lacked authorization to receive KYC documents, which were found to be incorrect and unverifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the rectification application.
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalties on the appellant CHA under Sections 112, 114, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, rejecting the appellant's claim of lack of mens rea regarding the mis-declared and overvalued consignment. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice as additional submissions were considered in the impugned order. The appellant failed to produce the importer or proprietor despite summons and submitted misleading information about delivery of summons. The appellant lacked authorization to receive KYC documents, which were found to be incorrect and unverifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the rectification application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
