Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT allowed the appeals of the anonymized appellant-CHA and G-Card holder and set aside penalties imposed under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted the principal importer had settled under ss.127B/127C and found no investigation or material implicating the foreign supplier to substantiate connivance. On facts, Revenue failed to prove the CHA's or G-Card holder's involvement in under-valuation or mis-declaration: the CHA acted as freight forwarder per shipping documents and the G-Card holder declared goods as provided, lacked presence at loading, knowledge of transaction particulars, and received no unlawful consideration. The Tribunal observed that regulatory action under CBLR-2018, not penal provisions, would have been appropriate for CHA.
CESTAT allowed the appeals of the anonymized appellant-CHA and G-Card holder and set aside penalties imposed under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted the principal importer had settled under ss.127B/127C and found no investigation or material implicating the foreign supplier to substantiate connivance. On facts, Revenue failed to prove the CHA's or G-Card holder's involvement in under-valuation or mis-declaration: the CHA acted as freight forwarder per shipping documents and the G-Card holder declared goods as provided, lacked presence at loading, knowledge of transaction particulars, and received no unlawful consideration. The Tribunal observed that regulatory action under CBLR-2018, not penal provisions, would have been appropriate for CHA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
