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...
The CESTAT set aside the cancellation of the Public Bonded Warehouse License under Section 58(B) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed due to alleged shortages detected during stock verification. The Tribunal noted that customs duty amounting to Rs. 17.14 lakhs was deposited prior to the verification, which the Department failed to consider, and found discrepancies in the reported shortage quantity. There was no evidence of collusion between the appellant and a third party for clandestine removal of goods. Given the appellant was not a habitual offender and had already been penalized with the maximum fine of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 117, the Tribunal held that cancellation of the license was disproportionate and would unjustly deprive the appellant of livelihood. Consequently, the penalty was upheld, but the license cancellation was quashed, allowing the appeal.
The CESTAT set aside the cancellation of the Public Bonded Warehouse License under Section 58(B) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed due to alleged shortages detected during stock verification. The Tribunal noted that customs duty amounting to Rs. 17.14 lakhs was deposited prior to the verification, which the Department failed to consider, and found discrepancies in the reported shortage quantity. There was no evidence of collusion between the appellant and a third party for clandestine removal of goods. Given the appellant was not a habitual offender and had already been penalized with the maximum fine of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 117, the Tribunal held that cancellation of the license was disproportionate and would unjustly deprive the appellant of livelihood. Consequently, the penalty was upheld, but the license cancellation was quashed, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
