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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged mis-declaration on airway bills relating to 43 consignments. The Tribunal held that the violation pertained solely to the Foreign Trade Policy, which falls outside the scope of Section 117, applicable only to contraventions of the Customs Act. The Commissioner erred by invoking an incorrect sub-section of Section 50 regarding document authority rather than accuracy of export information. Furthermore, no mis-declaration was found in the shipping bills, which contained correct descriptions. The penalty was unsustainable as the appellant was not properly notified of the specific contravention. Consequently, since no Customs Act provision was breached, the appellant-exporter could not be penalized under Section 117, and the impugned order was quashed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged mis-declaration on airway bills relating to 43 consignments. The Tribunal held that the violation pertained solely to the Foreign Trade Policy, which falls outside the scope of Section 117, applicable only to contraventions of the Customs Act. The Commissioner erred by invoking an incorrect sub-section of Section 50 regarding document authority rather than accuracy of export information. Furthermore, no mis-declaration was found in the shipping bills, which contained correct descriptions. The penalty was unsustainable as the appellant was not properly notified of the specific contravention. Consequently, since no Customs Act provision was breached, the appellant-exporter could not be penalized under Section 117, and the impugned order was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
