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 and set aside the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked competence to confirm the proposals where service by email was not established as effective under s.28(1)/s.28(4) of the Customs Act; in light of s.17 of the General Clauses Act the appellant was not at fault. The Tribunal treated the proceedings as deemed concluded on the appellant's uncontested date (15 Jan 2023) under s.28(6), nullifying recovery of differential duty interest under s.28AA and penalties under ss.114A/114AA insofar as based on the defective service. The matter was remitted consistent with the Tribunal's findings on defective service and competence.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked competence to confirm the proposals where service by email was not established as effective under s.28(1)/s.28(4) of the Customs Act; in light of s.17 of the General Clauses Act the appellant was not at fault. The Tribunal treated the proceedings as deemed concluded on the appellant's uncontested date (15 Jan 2023) under s.28(6), nullifying recovery of differential duty interest under s.28AA and penalties under ss.114A/114AA insofar as based on the defective service. The matter was remitted consistent with the Tribunal's findings on defective service and competence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
