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 and set aside penalties imposed on the appellant under s.112(a) and s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant acted solely as agent of the foreign supplier and had sought first check assessment but was denied access; therefore there was no material to sustain a finding that the appellant aided or abetted duty evasion, rendering s.112(a) inapplicable. Further, s.114AA was held inapplicable because it penalizes fraudulent export claims for export benefits, whereas the transaction involved importation; consequently s.114AA could not be invoked. The impugned penalties were quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside penalties imposed on the appellant under s.112(a) and s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant acted solely as agent of the foreign supplier and had sought first check assessment but was denied access; therefore there was no material to sustain a finding that the appellant aided or abetted duty evasion, rendering s.112(a) inapplicable. Further, s.114AA was held inapplicable because it penalizes fraudulent export claims for export benefits, whereas the transaction involved importation; consequently s.114AA could not be invoked. The impugned penalties were quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
