Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to re-determine valuation and to recover additional duty or confiscate goods on the basis that imported consignments did not bear a retail sale price (RSP). The obligation to levy additional duty under section 3(1)/3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act must operate within the statutory valuation scheme; post-clearance reassessment cannot be effected absent competence under the Customs Valuation rules or express statutory power to revisit transaction value under the Customs Act. Consequently the recovery of differential duty and consequential confiscation were held unlawful and quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to re-determine valuation and to recover additional duty or confiscate goods on the basis that imported consignments did not bear a retail sale price (RSP). The obligation to levy additional duty under section 3(1)/3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act must operate within the statutory valuation scheme; post-clearance reassessment cannot be effected absent competence under the Customs Valuation rules or express statutory power to revisit transaction value under the Customs Act. Consequently the recovery of differential duty and consequential confiscation were held unlawful and quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.